citizens united case 2 bak

<div>
</div><div>
</div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10 21&nbsp; sparked by thom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bad format? fonts?size/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">text bak 8 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">how did gop get 5?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dissent usually direct? named names?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;controversial 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2009</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v.FEC&nbsp; ruling 2010</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Majority<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Kennedy, joined by Roberts&nbsp; (bush 43 2005], Scalia [RR 1986 over bork?], Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (Part IV)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concurrence<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Roberts, joined by Alito</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concurrence<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Scalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concur/dissent<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concur/dissent<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Thomas</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DISSENT:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">THE dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[39] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. To emphasize his unhappiness with the majority, Stevens read part of his 90-page dissent from the bench.[40] Stevens concurred in the court's decision to sustain BCRA's disclosure provisions but dissented from the principal holding of the court. He argued that the court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." He added: "A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold."[41]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens also argued that the court addressed a question not raised by the litigants when it found BCRA §203 to be facially unconstitutional, and that the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law".[32] He argued that the majority had expanded the scope beyond the questions presented by the appellant and that therefore a sufficient record for judging the case did not exist. Stevens argued that at a minimum the court should have remanded the case for a fact-finding hearing, and that the majority did not consider other compilations of data, such as the Congressional record for justifying BCRA §203.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corruption concerns[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens argued that the court had long recognized that to deny Congress the power to safeguard against "the improper use of money to influence the result [of an election] is to deny to the nation in a vital particular the power of self protection".[42] After recognizing that in Buckley v. Valeo the court had struck down portions of a broad prohibition of independent expenditures from any sources, Stevens argued that nevertheless Buckley recognized the legitimacy of "prophylactic" measures for limiting campaign spending and found the prevention of "corruption" to be a reasonable goal for legislation. Consequently, Stevens argued that Buckley left the door open for carefully tailored future regulation.[32] Although the majority echoed many of the arguments in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Stevens argued that the majority opinion contradicted the reasoning of other campaign finance cases—in particular, of course, the two cases the majority expressly overruled, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens argued that the majority failed to recognize the possibility for corruption outside strict quid pro quo exchanges. He referenced the record from "McConnell v. FEC" to argue that, even if the exchange of votes for expenditures could not be shown, contributors gain favorable political access from such expenditures.[32] The majority, however, considered mere access to be an insufficient justification for limiting speech rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens responded that in the past, even when striking down a ban on corporate independent expenditures, the court "never suggested that such quid pro quo debts must take the form of outright vote buying or bribes" (Bellotti). Buckley, he said, also acknowledged that large independent expenditures present the same dangers as quid pro quo arrangements, even though Buckley struck down limits on such independent expenditures. Using the record from "McConnell", he argued that independent expenditures were sometimes a factor in gaining political access and concluded that large independent expenditures generate more influence than direct campaign contributions.[32] Furthermore, Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage, citing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.,[43] (holding that $3 million in independent expenditures in a judicial race raised sufficient questions about a judge's impartiality to require the judge to recuse himself in a future case involving the spender). Stevens argued that it was contradictory for the majority to ignore the same risks in legislative and executive elections, and argued that the majority opinion would exacerbate the problem presented in Caperton because of the number of states with judicial elections and increased spending in judicial races.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The appearance of corruption[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the "appearance of corruption" in elections. Earlier cases, including Buckley, recognized the importance of public confidence in democracy. Stevens cited recent data indicating that 80% of the public view corporate independent expenditures as a method used to gain unfair legislative access.[32] Stevens predicted that if the public came to believe that corporations dominate elections, disaffected voters would stop participating.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Corporations as part of the political process[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[32] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[44] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Freedom of speech concerns[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens critiqued the majority's main argument that prohibiting limits on spending protects free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Citing Austin, Stevens argued that corporations unfairly influence the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match.[32] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on supporting this type of speech and gives the impression of widespread acclaim regardless of actual support.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Media censorship concerns[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fifth, Stevens criticized the majority's fear that the government could use BCRA §203 to censor the media. The focus placed on this hypothetical fear made no sense to him because it did not relate to the facts of this case—if the government actually attempted to apply BCRA §203 to the media (and assuming that Citizens United could not constitute media), the court could deal with the problem at that time. Stevens described the majority's supposed protection of the media as nothing more than posturing. According to him, it was the majority's new rule in this case, that prohibited a law from distinguishing between speakers or funding sources. This new rule would be the only reason why media corporations could not be exempted from BCRA §203.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens recognized that "[t]he press plays a unique role not only in the text, history, and structure of the First Amendment but also in facilitating public discourse,[39]" and even grants that the majority "raised some interesting and difficult questions about Congress' authority to regulate electioneering by the press, and about how to define what constitutes the press." In response he argued (emphasis in original) "that [this question of regulating and defining the press] is not the case before us." Stevens's opinion expresses his view that the institutional press can be distinguished from other persons and entities that are not the press while the majority opinion viewed "freedom of the press" as an activity, applicable to all citizens or groups of citizens seeking to publish views. However, while Stevens has been interpreted as implying the press clause specifically protects the institutional press it isn't clear from his opinion. In footnote 62 Stevens does argue that the free press clause demonstrates "that the drafters of the First Amendment did draw distinctions—explicit distinctions—between types of "speakers", or speech outlets or forms" but the disjunctive form of the sentence doesn't clearly entail that the distinction must have been between types of speakers rather than outlets or forms.[45]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Losing faith in our democracy[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sixth, Stevens claimed that the majority failed to give proper deference to the legislature. Stevens predicted that this ruling would restrict the ability of the states to experiment with different methods for decreasing corruption in elections. According to Stevens, this ruling virtually ended those efforts, "declaring by fiat" that people will not "lose faith in our democracy".[32] Stevens argued that the majority's view of a self-serving legislature, passing campaign-spending laws to gain an advantage in retaining a seat, coupled with "strict scrutiny" of laws, would make it difficult for any campaign finance regulation to be upheld in future cases.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shareholders rights[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seventh, Stevens argued that the majority opinion ignored the rights of shareholders. A series of cases protects individuals from legally compelled payment of union dues to support political speech.[46] Because shareholders invest money in corporations, Stevens argued that the law should likewise help to protect shareholders from funding speech that they oppose. The majority, however, argued that ownership of corporate stock was voluntary and that unhappy shareholders could simply sell off their shares if they did not agree with the corporation's speech. Stevens also argued that Political Action Committees (PACs), which allow individual members of a corporation to invest money in a separate fund, are an adequate substitute for general corporate speech and better protect shareholder rights. The majority, by contrast, argued that most corporations are too small and lack the resources and raw number of shareholders and management staff necessary to support the legal compliance, accounting and administrative costs of a PAC. In this dispute, the opposing views essentially discussed differing types of entities: Stevens focused his argument on large, publicly held corporations, while the majority, and particularly Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, placed an emphasis on small, closely held corporations and non-profits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens called the majority's faith in "corporate democracy" an unrealistic method for a shareholder to oppose political funding. A derivative suit is slow, inefficient, risky and potentially expensive. Likewise, shareholder meetings only happen a few times a year, not prior to every decision or transaction. Rather, the officers and boards control the day-to-day spending, including political spending. According to Stevens, the shareholders have few options, giving them "virtually nonexistent" recourse for opposing a corporation's political spending.[32] Furthermore, most shareholders use investment intermediaries, such as mutual funds or pensions, and by the time a shareholder may find out about a corporation's political spending and try to object, the damage is done and the shareholder has funded disfavored speech.[47]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2x? 12/19 tim lau</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">january 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What was Citizens United about?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What was the rationale for the ruling?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is perhaps the most troubling result of Citizens United: in a time of historic wealth inequality,” wrote Weiner, “the decision has helped reinforce the growing sense that our democracy primarily serves the interests of the wealthy few, and that democratic participation for the vast majority of citizens is of relatively little value.” PRINCETON STUDY?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">An election system that is skewed heavily toward wealthy donors also sustains racial bias and reinforces the racial wealth gap. Citizens United also unleashed political spending from special interest groups.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What are PACs and super PACs?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Political action committees, or “PACs,” are organizations that raise and spend money for campaigns that support or oppose political candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. Traditional PACs are permitted to donate directly to a candidate’s official campaign, but they are also subject to contribution limits, both in terms of what they can receive from individuals and what they can give to candidates. For example, PACs are only permitted to contribute up to $5,000 per year to a candidate per election.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the 2010 case Speechnow.org v. FEC, however, a federal appeals court ruled — applying logic from Citizens United — that outside groups could accept unlimited contributions from both individual donors and corporations as long as they don’t give directly to candidates. Labeled “super PACs,” these outside groups were still permitted to spend money on independently produced ads and on other communications that promote or attack specific candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In other words, super PACs are not bound by spending limits on what they can collect or spend. Additionally, super PACs are required to disclose their donors, but those donors can include dark money groups, which make the original source of the donations unclear. And while super PACs are technically prohibited from coordinating directly with candidates, weak coordination rules have often proven ineffective.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Super PAC money started influencing elections almost immediately after Citizens United. From 2010 to 2018, super PACs spent approximately $2.9 billion on federal elections. Notably, the bulk of that money comes from just a few wealthy individual donors. In the 2018 election cycle, for example, the top 100 donors to super PACs contributed nearly 78 percent of all super PAC spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">What is dark money?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dark money is election-related spending where the source is secret. Citizens United contributed to a major jump in this type of spending, which often comes from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In its decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that unlimited spending by wealthy donors and corporations would not distort the political process, because the public would be able to see who was paying for ads and “give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” But in reality, the voters often cannot know who is actually behind campaign spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s because leading up to Citizens United, transparency in U.S. elections had started to erode, thanks to a disclosure loophole opened by the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, along with inaction by the IRS and controversial rulemaking by the FEC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United allowed big political spenders to exploit the growing lack of transparency in political spending. This has contributed to a surge in secret spending from outside groups in federal elections. Dark money expenditures increased from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $300 million in the 2012 election cycle and more than $174 million in the 2014 midterms. In the top 10 most competitive 2014 Senate races, more than 71 percent of the outside spending on the winning candidates was dark money. These numbers actually underestimate the impact of dark money on recent elections, because they do not include super PAC spending that may have originated with dark money sources, or spending that happens outside the “electioneering communications window” 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finally, because they can hide the identities of their donors, dark money groups also provide a way for foreign countries to hide their activity from U.S. voters and law enforcement agencies. This increases the vulnerability of U.S. elections to international interference.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">How can reformers address the consequences of Citizens United?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the short term, a Supreme Court reversal or constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United is extremely unlikely, and regardless, it would leave many of the problems of big money in politics unsolved. But even without a full reversal of Citizens United in the near future, there are policy solutions to help combat the dominance of big money in politics and the lack of transparency in the U.S. campaign finance system.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First, publicly funded elections would help counter the influence of the extremely wealthy by empowering small donors. Specifically, a system that matches small-dollar donations with public funds would expand the role of small donors and help candidates rely less on big checks and special interests. In recent years, public financing has gained support across the United States. As of 2018, 24 municipalities and 14 states have enacted some form of public financing, and at least 124 winning congressional candidates voiced support for public financing during the 2018 midterm election cycle.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lawmakers on the national, state, and local level can also push to increase transparency in election spending. For example, the DISCLOSE Act, which has been introduced several times in Congress, would strengthen disclosure and disclaimer requirements, enabling voters to know who is trying to influence their votes. Congress could also pass stricter rules to prevent super PACs and other outside groups from coordinating directly with campaigns and political parties.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fixing the U.S. elections system will also require fixing the FEC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Long dysfunctional thanks to partisan gridlock, the FEC is out of touch with today’s election landscape and has failed to update campaign finance safeguards to reflect current challenges. For example, FEC rules do not even include the term “super PAC,” and it has declined to find violations or even open an investigation in high-profile allegations of coordination. The agency’s failure to enforce federal disclosure laws helped allow dark money to pour into U.S. federal elections since 2010.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In an April 2019 report, the Brennan Center outlined a number of structural reforms that Congress can pursue to help tackle dysfunction in the FEC.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Finally, addressing the impacts of Citizens United requires building a movement in favor of campaign finance reform. There’s public support for such reforms. In recent polls, 94 percent of Americans blamed wealthy political donors for political dysfunction, and 77 percent of registered voters said that “reducing the influence of special interests and corruption in Washington” was either the “single most” or a “very important” factor in deciding their vote for Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United was a blow to democracy — but it doesn’t have to be the final word. Politicians can listen to what the vast majority of the public wants, even if big donors don’t like it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-soon-campaign-season-anti-hillary-movie-201128120.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Coming Soon to Campaign Season: The Anti-Hillary Movie</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ted Johnson</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">March 22, 2016</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hiillary Clinton has noted, on the campaign trail and in debates, that “Citizens United was about me.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Her point is that she grasps campaign finance reform because it was so personal: The famous court decision has its roots in a 2008 documentary called “Hillary, the Movie,” which, to say the least, was not flattering.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Get ready for a new round of anti-Hillary projects, ones that may not instigate another Supreme Court fight, but could generate some box office business.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Late last month, Dinesh D’Souza unveiled his trailer for “Hillary’s America” at the Conservative Political Action Conference, aiming to capitalize on the success of a 2012 documentary, “2016: Obama’s America,” which grossed a hefty $33.4 million at the domestic box office that year. According to Box Office Mojo, that was enough to place it as the No. 2 grossing political documentary of all time, after Michael Moore’s runaway hit “Fahrenheit 9/11.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Meanwhile, David Bossie, the president of Citizens United who produced “Hillary, the Movie,” says that he is planning a follow-up for this year, with the tentative title “Hillary, the Sequel.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He says that the movie will “have a host of very interesting material related to her time at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He won’t reveal other details, but noted that for the past two years, Citizens United filed 40 Freedom of Information Act requests and a dozen lawsuits against the State Department. Bossie became a familiar name in Washington in the 1990s for his investigations of the Clintons.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D’Souza’s “Hillary’s America” will be no less direct in its target. Clinton is a focus of the project — one shot in the trailer shows her on CNN with the banner, “Clinton: I deleted only personal emails.” Another features a blonde woman looking out the window of the Oval Office.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But she is not the entire focus. The trailer starts with D’Souza asking the question, “Who are these Democrats?” With a mix of news footage and reenactments, it promises to “go behind the curtain and discover the soul of the Democratic Party,” and how the party went from supporting “slavery to enslavement.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“What if their plan is to steal America?” D’Souza says at the end of the trailer. “Who will stop them now?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The trailer also features D’Souza’s booking photo after he was indicted and charged in 2014 with making illegal campaign contributions by using “straw donors” to a U.S. Senate campaign. He was sentenced to five years probation, including eight months in a community confinement center in San Diego.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At his sentencing, D’Souza told the judge in the case that he regretted breaking the law, but he has argued in interviews that he was selectively targeted for prosecution. In the trailer for “Hillary’s America,” D’Souza says, “It all began when the Obama administration tried to shut me up — what did I learn?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This movie is not just about Hillary. It is about progressivism and the Democratic party,” D’Sousa says. “It is about the Democratic party’s central claim, which is causal justice, looking out for the little guy. What we are saying is that is not true. It is not true then and it is not true now.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If that gets those on the left crying “Southern strategy” or “Donald Trump,” in the case of a political documentary, provocative is the point, especially this year. Reactions to the YouTube video have run 5-2 positive, but more important may be the number views: more than 900,000.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Now more than ever, movies like this have a particular resonance and relevance in the marketplace,” says Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore, which conducts box office and media research.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He points to the success of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” in the 2004 election cycle, and “2016: Obama’s America” in 2012. The interest is even greater this year.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This year the rules have really been changed,” he says. “There are so many contentious points of view, and it is a very highly charged political climate. Everyone is talking politics now. It is on everyone’s mind.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There’s some irony in that other Clinton projects got sidelined well before she even got into the race. After NBC announced a Hillary Clinton miniseries and CNN unveiled plans for a documentary project, the Republican National Committee threatened to freeze them out of debate sponsorship, arguing that they were going to be “political ads masked as unbiased entertainment.” The director of the CNN documentary said his work would be investigative and fair, but both projects were abandoned.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D’Souza says that they plan to have a premiere in July at a Cleveland theater close to the Republican National Convention, and then to open the next week, with the goal of a wide release. He is in talks with four distributors for the rights. At its peak, “2016: Obama’s America” was in more than 2,000 theaters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“If you want to be heard politically, if you want your message to reach a wide number of people, this is the time to do it,” D’Souza says. “This year, ordinarily apathetic Americans pay attention to politics.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The budget for “Hillary’s America,” D’Souza says, is $12.5 million, with initial prints and advertising. The production cost $5 million, double the amount of “2016.” The increase helped pay for more expensive scenes, like reenactments.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said that it is funded by small- and medium- sized investors, but that they have no affiliation with the Republican National Committee or the campaigns, or the “Koch Brothers or any of the high-profile players in the campaign.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I have actually made a decision to stay out of the Republican race and not endorse anybody,” he says. “I don’t want the film to be seen as an extension of the Republican establishment or of any other candidate. This is a film about the other side of the aisle.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The focus on the Democratic party, rather than just Clinton herself, left open the possibility that Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders could upend the race and secure the nomination. Much of “Hillary’s America” was shot in the fall, just as it was becoming clear that Sanders was a serious challenger.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D’Souza expects what he calls “good controversy,” but argues that his project is being done in a “very responsible way.” Not too surprisingly, the trailer already has gotten some pushback.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I would love to cross swords with Michael Moore or Van Jones or Elizabeth Warren,” he says of the potential reaction.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If there is one figure who has served as an unintended inspiration for conservative filmmakers, it is Moore.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Fahrenheit 9/11,” which grossed almost $120 million at the box office, opened in July 2004, just as President George W. Bush was running for reelection.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">After its runaway success, Bossie, a well-known Washington political activist who ran the conservative advocacy org Citizens United, rushed a response, called “Celsius 41.11,” that debuted in the waning weeks of the presidential campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Box office results were minute compared with the “Fahrenheit” haul, but the experience was just the start of Bossie’s production company, Citizens United Prods., which has produced a host of conservative documentaries ever since, depending heavily on home video sales.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When Bossie set out to show “Hillary, the Movie” in 2008 on on-demand platforms, federal election officials deemed its promotional ads as electioneering, in violation of campaign finance laws prohibiting corporate and union spending on such spots so close to an election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That paved the way for Bossie to pursue a First Amendment court challenge, eventually leading to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision that opened the door to independent corporate expenditures advocating for or against candidates.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even as the decision has been a rallying cry for Clinton and Bernie Sanders about the corruptive influence of money in politics, Bossie defends the ruling, arguing that it has freed up filmmakers of all types to make political movies that could be distributed and advertised when it really mattered — just before an election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“That is why we had to go to court,” Bossie says. “Whether it is ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ or ‘Hillary, the Sequel,’ it is important to put these films out at a time when people are engaged in the election.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To Bossie and those who backed him in his case, it didn’t make sense that “Fahrenheit 9/11,” distributed by Lionsgate, fell under a media exemption, while “Hillary, the Movie,” distributed by Citizens United, a nonprofit with corporate contributions, did not.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2004 Bossie had filed a Federal Election Commission challenge to “Fahrenheit 9/11,” so he was well aware that the release plans for “Hillary, the Movie” also would face scrutiny.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the Supreme Court was about to consider the case, some surprising organizations came to Bossie’s defense, like the ACLU, which had been the target of a Citizens United documentary, “ACLU: At War With America.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press also argued that a problematic part of campaign finance law it that it left it up to courts or Congress to determine which organizations got a media exemption and which did not.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Progressive groups like People for the American Way counter that the “real-world consequence” of Citizens United has been to expand the political power of corporations at the expense of the political freedom of citizens.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie, who recently defended the ruling in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, argues that filmmakers of all partisan stripes will not have to face federal election challenges to their marketing and release plans. He said that it was too soon to reveal release plans for “Hillary, the Sequel,” although it will get a theatrical run.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clinton has taken note on the campaign trail, citing it in her New Hampshire concession speech and at other times noting that “now I’m in their cross-hairs again.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“They took aim at me, but they ended up damaging our entire democracy,” she said in September, according to the AP. “We can’t let them pull that same trick again.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ref</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">LAT mar 2016 2x?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in 2007, my organization produced a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie” and tried to put it on TV. The name of our nonprofit? Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our name, of course, has become synonymous with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that followed in 2010. And ever since it unfairly has become the boogeyman of liberal politicians, blamed for opening the floodgates to excesses of money in elections. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders say opposing Citizens United should be a litmus test for the next Supreme Court justice, and both support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To me, however, the decision represented — then and now — a sweeping victory against government censorship of free speech, especially political speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Simply put, since the Citizens United decision there is more free speech in America -- and, importantly, no evidence that corporations have been able to buy an election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">People upset by the repercussions of Citizens United might blame me, or maybe Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. But they should turn their gaze to filmmaker Michael Moore. In June 2004 — a presidential election year — he released “Fahrenheit 9/11.” That documentary — produced and promoted with corporate money — made a tremendous impact in the run-up to election day. TV was filled with ads for the film, which made President George W. Bush look ridiculous in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That inspired me to produce conservative films. [note he makes no mention of his attempts to stop moore, nor does he disclose his own corp $]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But when I made “Hillary: The Movie” in 2008, the Federal Election Commission argued that, unlike Moore’s film, it was a form of “electioneering” and that I couldn’t show it during an election season— the very time that free speech matters most. Under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws, the government could actually have thrown me in jail for showing “Hillary: The Movie” or its promotional ads on television.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our case focused narrowly on making “Hillary: The Movie” available as video-on-demand. But the justices rightly looked at the bigger picture.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If federal election laws could be used to prevent my nonprofit organization from advertising or distributing our movie, what was to prevent other forms of speech with corporate ties — books from publishing houses, DVDs from film studios — from being limited during an election cycle if they mentioned or favored a political candidate?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It’s worth remembering that during the first round of oral arguments, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart asserted that McCain-Feingold’s limitations “could have been applied to additional media as well.” Under that kind of broad interpretation of the law, Michael Bay’s “13 Hours” about the debacle in Benghazi, Libya, or Johnny Depp’s “Funny or Die Presents Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal: The Movie” also could have been challenged for violating corporate political spending during an election season.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Simply put, since the Citizens United decision there is more free speech in America — and, importantly, no evidence that corporations have been able to buy an election. In fact, the candidates with the biggest super-PAC war chests have often lost. Jeb Bush, who spent more than $100 million before dropping out of the Republican primary on Feb. 20, is just the most recent example.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I don’t mean to suggest that the Citizens United ruling has had no effect.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prior to it, American political speech was stifled by excessive and burdensome rules aimed at protecting incumbents and the establishment class of both parties. As Justice Kennedy explained in his opinion, since the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted in the 1970s, the Federal Election Commission had adopted 568 pages of regulations, drafted 1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those regulations, and issued 1,771 advisory opinions interpreting the law. There were rules for 71 distinct types of entities, each of which was subject to separate rules for 33 different types of political speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This regulatory scheme was thwarting the ability of anti-establishment candidates to get their messages out. And our 2010 victory knocked a hole in it. It made it clear the 1st Amendment protects everyone’s speech during the process of choosing elected leaders — and that their voices couldn’t be stifled by spending caps or blackout periods.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Almost immediately, a shift began that has put the political establishment on its heels. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Rand Paul defeated GOP establishment candidates in Senate primaries in the 2010 election. Scores of tea party-backed [koch?] candidates were elected to the House, returning that body to Republican control. Super-PAC spending in support of former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz helped him defeat a well-funded Washington-backed opponent on his way to the U.S. Senate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While some critics of the Citizens United decision are driven by ideology, many just preferred the status quo. Most politicians surround themselves with high-priced election consultants and lawyers who are masters of Washington’s rule book — and they want to retain the advantage they’re paying for.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Clinton, it’s not really about ideology, corporations or money; it’s about her. After her lopsided loss in New Hampshire, she tried to out-Bern Bernie Sanders, reasserting that (despite her own super PAC backing) she’s ready to reverse Citizens United. In her concession speech Clinton ranted, “Citizens United, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our country’s history, was actually a case about a right-wing attack on me and my campaign. A right-wing organization took aim at me and ended up damaging our entire democracy.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not surprisingly, I disagree. The right of anyone to criticize political leaders and political opponents is one of the founding principles of our democracy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That said, I do believe we need common-sense campaign finance reform. We should raise the limits on direct contributions to candidates and traditional membership PACs — which would help make super PACs unnecessary and obsolete. Increasing the disclosure threshold for individual contributions from $200 to $1,000 also would reduce the burden of election regulations and promote more participation in politics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the final analysis, I will always believe that more speech is better than less speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David N. Bossie is the President of Citizens United, which was the plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2x?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2011/04/the_tea_party_propaganda_factory_you_probably_dont_know_about</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the&nbsp; Tea Party Propaganda Factory You Probably Don't Know About</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Rosen April 19, 2011</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">he 2010 Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited campaign spending by corporations, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, is one of the most momentous rulings in U.S. legal history. It transforms the long but unspoken truth of American politics – corporate wealth buys legislative power -- into the law of the land.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court’s judgment adds one more nail to the coffin of transparent governance based on popular democracy. The unlimited financing and unreported accountability of the media message complements generous campaign contributions, well-paid lobbyists and effective regulatory capture to further ensure that corporate wealth maintains political influence. The Court’s decision is the icing on the cake to an era of unprecedented class polarization, with the rich seizing an ever greater share of the nation’s wealth.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As has been much reported since the decision was handed down in January 2010, the Court overturned a lower court decision and found that a corporation’s First Amendment protections overruled the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At issue was Hillary: The Movie, a film produced by Citizens United, a staunch rightwing political action group. Since its founding in 1988, Citizens United has matured into one of the nation’s leading documentary production companies. Its films are produced, written and directed by reputable industry professionals and hosted by well-known rightwing figures like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson. To date, it has released 17 full-length documentaries on such topics as Ronald Reagan, Bill and Hillary Clinton, 9/11, Barack Obama, the UN, conservative womanhood, and religion.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United is a cornerstone member of a growing praetorian guard furthering the interests of the super-rich. This guard includes law firms, think tanks, policy groups, PR firms, astroturf organizations, co-opted civil-rights groups, talking-head bloviators and unquestioning reporters who further a well-orchestrated rightwing, corporatist propaganda agenda.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the all-important areas of the media message, Citizens United is the leading voice and vision of the Tea Party agenda. Would-be “pranksters” James O'Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are creative hacks, having lost all credibility due to their ham-fisted manipulations of phony revelations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In America’s secular-capitalist and corporate-religious society, the battle over ideas, beliefs and knowledge is the battle for the citizen’s soul. The Murdock enterprise and talk radio are the most obvious voices of rightwing propaganda. Citizens United is just as pernicious.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sleaze runs deep in American politics. During the Revolutionary War, British propaganda circulated scurrilous rumors that General Washington engaged in a number of illicit relations. One alleged he had a mistress; another claimed he kept a corporal’s wife at his campsite; still another alleged he had an adulterous liaison with a neighbor’s wife and she bore his out-of-wedlock child.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In our modern era, the most controversial propaganda campaign is the notorious Willie Horton ad used in the 1988 presidential race. The election pitted George H.W. Bush against Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. The ad assailed Dukakis’ “liberal” prison polices, effectively painting him with the racist brush, the Republican party's unspoken secret weapon.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Horton was a Massachusetts felon serving a life sentence for murder; he was mysteriously granted a weekend pass, and while out of prison committed an assault, armed robbery and a rape. The ad, the brainchild of Floyd Brown, linked Horton to Dukakis and played a critical role in Bush’s victory.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brown was the founder and first president of Citizens United. Prior to founding Citizens United, he served as political director of Americans for Bush and was president of the board of the Reagan Ranch, a division of the Young America's Foundation. Ever the opportunist, he now serves as president of Excellentia, Inc., an Internet video venture "specializing in marketing to conservatives and Christians.” Brown continues to do battle in rightwing politics, most recently serving as the media adviser to Joe Miller’s ill-fated 2010 Tea Party campaign in Alaska to unseat incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Horton ad is the leitmotif of rightwing media propaganda; it is the template for all Citizens United subsequent media productions. While Floyd Brown created the Horton ad, Citizens United's current head, David Bossie, has pushed the documentary as the vehicle of rightwing propaganda.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie has a checkered career as a Republican operative. He got his start joining a long-line of dirty tricksters, the most modern examples beginning with Chuck Colson and continuing on with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. In 1996, Bossie was outed for leaking the confidential phone logs of a former Commerce Department official. In 1998, he gained national attention when then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced him out as chief investigator for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform pursuing the anti-Clinton Whitewater investigation. He took creative license selectively editing transcripts of recordings of phone conversations involving Hillary Clinton. Playing the dirty trickster’s game, Bossie edited the tapes to make it appear Clinton was complicit in billing irregularities.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie hooked up with Brown and Citizens United in the early ‘90s. In 1996, in a fundraising letter, it promoted Bossie – then a Senate staffer -- as its "top investigator” and its insider “directing the [Whitewater] probe." This created quite a conflict-of-interest stir. So, when Bossie was booted off the Hill -- and in recognition of his invaluable dirty tricks against the Clintons – he was rewarded with a lucrative position at Citizens United, ultimately replacing Brown.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* * </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Over the last decade, Citizens United has become one of America’s major documentary production companies, with Bossie serving as either executive producer, producer or director of all its films. These docs frame the ultra-right’s propaganda campaign, set its agenda and give voice to the Tea Party. Its films are:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Battle for America (2010) – a Tea Party promotion of "Constitutional Conservatives"; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Stephen Bannon is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman (2010) – a portrait of Tea Party women; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Bannon is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* America at Risk (2010) -- explores the “dangers” facing America in the post-9/11 decade; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Kevin Knoblock is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Nine Days That Changed the World (2010) -- a Tea Party morality tale hosted by Callista and Newt Gingrich; Bossie is executive producer/ producer and Knoblock is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Generation Zero (2010) – offers a conservative analysis of the causes of 2008-2009 global economic crisis; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Bannon is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Perfect Valor (2009) – a John-Wayneish portrait of six Marines who served in Iraq, narrated by Fred Thompson; Knoblock, Craig Haffner, Chetwynd and Bossie are co-executive producers; Matilda Bode, David Taylor and Bossie are co-producers; and Taylor is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny (2009) – an homage to Saint Gipper, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, the Gingrichs and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie and Knoblock are co-producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage (2009) – the title speaks for itself, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Rediscovering God in America (2008) – the original tale of “one nation under God,” hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie and the Gingrichs are co-executive producers; and Knoblock is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Hype: the Obama Effect (2008) – a Tea Party slam against Obama during the ’08 campaign; Bossie is executive producer/producer and Alan Peterson is writer/director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Blocking the Path of 9/11 (2008) – an “investigative” report into a 2006 ABC mini-series into 9/11 that was pulled by the network; Bossie is executive producer/producer and John Ziegler is co-producer, writer and director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Hillary: The Movie (2008) – Hillary, the bashing; Bossie is executive producer/producer, Peterson and Lee Troxler are co-writers and Peterson is director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* We Have the Power: Making America Energy Independent (2008) – Citizens United’s examination of alternate power sources, including nuclear, hydrogen and wind, hosted by the Gingrichs; Bossie, Newt Gingrich and Lawrence Kadish are co-executive producers; Bossie, Knoblock and Terry Moloney are co-producers; and Moloney is writer/ director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* ACLU: At War with America (2007) – Citizens United war against the ACLU; Bossie is executive producer, producer, writer and director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Border Wars: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration (2006) – immigrants, the enemy; Bossie is executive producer/co-producer and Knoblock is co-producer, writer and director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Broken Promises: The United Nations at 60 (2005) – a dubious historical portrait of the UN; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Knoblock is the writer; and Knoblock and Ron Silver are co-directors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain … Begins to Die (2004) – Citizens United’s rejoinder to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411; Bossie is executive producer/producer; Lionel Chewynd and Ted Steinberg are co-writes; and Knoblock is director.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* * </font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his role as head of Citizens United and executive producer of its production arm, Bossie has brought together some talented film industry pros to further the rightwing propaganda campaign. This distinguishes his efforts from those “adolescent” provocations by O'Keefe and Breitbart. Brief profiles of leading Bossie co-collaborators follow:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"> Stephen Bannon runs Genius Products, a Hollywood production company, and is a co-founder of the National Tea Party Federation. He comes to filmmaking having served from 1976 to 1983 in the US Navy (including a stint at the Pentagon) and then 15 years in media investment banking and film financing at Goldman Sachs, Jefferies & Co. and his own firm. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has a number of feature film credits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Kevin Knoblock is a documentary TV warhorse. In addition to docs for Citizens United, he has produced, written and/or directed programs for A&E, A&E Biography, TNN, The History Channel and the Travel Channel; he did magazine shows at NBC, MTV and KCBS was an executive at KABC-TV and "Entertainment Tonight."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Terry Moloney is an established Hollywood writer/director who runs Proletariat Filmworks, an independent production company. In additional to work for Citizens United, his credits include a public-interest film featuring Sean Penn, a feature film and an executive position with PAX-TV.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Alan Peterson is a Hollywood actor, producer and director. His all but forgotten 2004 doc, FahrenHYPE 9/11: Unraveling the Truth about Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore (2004), featured such luminaries as shoe-fetishist Dick Morris and former NYC mayor Ed Koch.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* David Taylor received a Peabody Award for a film about Lyndon Johnson following JFK’s assassination and an Emmy for a film exploring the rivalry between LBJ and Robert Kennedy. He has produced, written and/or director about 100 independent docs for everyone from the BBC and Channel 4 to PBS and the History Channel.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* Ron Silver was a well-known and respected actor in film, TV and on Broadway. He seems to have had an incoherent, if compelling, political outlook: He supported Bill Clinton, backed George Bush and voted for Obama.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">* John Ziegler seems more a multimedia rightwing self-promoter than an established Hollywood media pro. He’s been a radio sportscaster talk-radio host, then moved to TV, authored a dubious book of the First Amendment, proudly promoted an attack on John Kerry’s presidential campaign, and has championed Sarah Palin while assailing Obama.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Citizens United talented “team” of film industry professionals suggests how the propaganda battle has been professionalized.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United promotes what it -- and many among the conservative right and Tea Party movement -- consider “traditional values.” These values are grounded in what is known as an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution; an imperialist- and militaristic-based expansionist foreign policy; a monopolist (as opposed to a competitive, Adam Smith) concept of “free enterprise”; a belief in a white, Judeo-Christian notion of morality; and reverence to a heterosexual, monogamous patriarchal concept of the family as the basic social unit of American society. These values codify a 20th-century mindset in a 21st-century world. They distinguish Citizens United documentaries.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United films provide a false coherence to explain the real, complex history that is America and the postmodern life. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 411, Errol Morris’s Fog of War and Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job are outstanding calls-to-arms confronting Citizens United’s simplemindedness. However, their very success is witness to their weakness. They are one-shots in an era when maintaining a sustained message is critical.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">America is in the midst of a profound economic, social and ideological battle. An oligarchy is taking control of the nation, refashioning democracy and popular values. The nation was once defined as welcoming those considered foreign, by a spirit of civility and community, of free social beings. But today, community has been replaced by self-interest, the body politic by personal greed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United gives voice and vision to a concerted propaganda initiative attempting to reframe America from a nation of opportunity and mobility to one of social standing and privilege. It’s time for the progressive community to mobilize the infrastructure and to engage in the sustained ideological battle needed to challenge the new praetorian guard exemplified by Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">VIDEOS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CATO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeGlzEavpTM</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">simpson problem not too much $ in electios, it's gov't has too much power</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The so-called Citizens United case offers the Supreme Court a chance to severely curtail the free speech abuses of the Federal Election Commission. John Samples, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Steve Simpson and George Mason University law professor Allison Hayward weigh in.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This video was produced by Austin Bragg ( http://www.twitter.com/habragg ) and Caleb Brown ( http://www.twitter.com/cobrown ).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PAC LEG https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKj5W5aizxU</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ANASTASIA BODER&nbsp; scrappy indiv makes movie and LLC?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cu a nonprofit corp // mom and pop biz</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">soc media levels field</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">target ppl o like'more sp is better</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">skipped appeal straight to scotus?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">441b</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">buckley AUSTIN KENNEDY</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">STEVENS VS SCALIA ORIG;&nbsp; &nbsp;CLARENCE WD GO FURTHER TO STRIKE DOWN MORE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Qm2D0mB-4</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fedsoc bs vid&nbsp; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9lYuao3sfQ</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">When a non-profit organization called Citizens United attempted to air and advertise a political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie” (funded in part by corporate contributors), the Federal Election Commission said that this would be a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which proscribed corporations from engaging in “electioneering communication” within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Do corporations have a right to engage in political speech? Can corporations donate directly to political campaigns? Prof. Michael R. Dimino of Widener University’s Commonwealth Law School examines campaign finance and corporate contributions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Learn more about Michael R. Dimino:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://commonwealthlaw.widener.edu/academics/faculty/detail/13/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Related Links & Differing Views:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law: “Citizens United: 8 Years Later”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2018/03/07/citizens-united-8-years-later/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Yale Law Journal: “Reconsidering Citizens United as a Press Clause Case”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.yalelawjournal.org/essay/reconsidering-citizens-united-as-a-press-clause-case</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Harvard Law Review: “Citizens United at Work”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/citizens-united-at-work/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Atlantic: “How to Reverse Citizens United”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/how-to-reverse-citizens-united/471504/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Engage: “Illuminating Citizens United: What the Decision Really Did”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/illuminating-citizens-united-what-the-decision-really-did</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Federalist Society: “Debate: Was Citizens United Wrongly Decided?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://fedsoc.org/commentary/videos/debate-was-citizens-united-wrongly-decided-audio-video</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/citizens_united_complaint.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to 3 judge ct = appellate?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Citizens United complains as follows: Introduction 1. This is an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of (a) § 201 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”), Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, 88-89, entitled “Disclosure of Electioneering Communications,” which added a new subsection “(f)” to § 304 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) that requires reporting of electioneering communications and (b) BCRA § 311, 116 Stat. 105, requiring that electioneering communications contain “disclaimers.” See 11 C.F.R. § 110.11. BCRA § 201 is called herein the “Reporting Requirement,” BCRA § 311 is called the “Disclaimer Requirement,” and the requirements together are called the “Disclosure Requirements” for ease of identification. The Reporting Requirement is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 434(f). The Disclaimer Requirement is codified at 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">18. Citizens United will broadcast the 30-second, issue-advocacy ad entitled “Questions” on Fox News cable, and may broadcast it on major television network stations, too. Citizens United will broadcast the 10-second ads “Wait” and “Pants” on major television network stations, but not on Fox News. The disclaimer language mandated by FEC rule, see 11 C.F.R. § 110.11, takes about 4 seconds to narrate, making 10-second ads virtually impossible and 30-second ads extremely difficult to do and have any significant time left for substantive communication...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">23. One of the chief concerns with the Reporting Requirement is the disclosure of donors who may then be subject to various forms of retaliation by political opponents. On information and belief, the Clinton White House had in its possession over 1,000 FBI files on political opponents. See, e.g., Neil A. Lewis, White House Got More Files Than Disclosed, N.Y. Times, June 12, 2007 (available by query at google.com). 24. Citizens United will have donors that it will be required to disclose (as to name and address), absent the judicial relief requested here, because it will pay for the Ads “exclusively from a segregated bank established to pay for electioneering communications permissible under 11 C.F.R. § 114.15” (rule implementing WRTL II by permitting corporate electioneering communications), to which donors will have “donated an amount aggregating $1,000 or more . . . since the first day of the preceding calendar year.” 11 C.F.R. § 104.20. 25. Citizens United intends to broadcast materially-similar ads mentioning public figures who are candidates in materially-similar situations during future electioneering communication periods when public interest is at a peak. There is a strong likelihood that such similar situations will recur, given the facts that Plaintiff has engaged in similar activity in the past and that such activity is common and regularly recurring for it—as are conflicting electioneering communication periods</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">\s James Bopp, Jr James Bopp, Jr. \s Richard E. Coleson Richard E. Coleson* \s Jeffrey P. Gallant Jeffrey P. Gallant* \s Clayton J. Callen Clayton J. Callen* BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM 1 South Sixth Street Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510 812/232-2434 telephone 812/234-3685 facsimile *pro hac vice motion pending Counsel for Plaintiff</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exhibit 1—Citizens United’s Ads “Wait” :10 [Image(s) of HRC on screen] If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton . . . wait ’til you see the movie. [Film Title Card] [Visual Only] Hillary: The Movie. [Visual Only] www.hillarythemovie.com “Pants” :10 [Image(s) of HRC on Screen] First, a kind word about Hillary Clinton: [Ann Coulter Speaking & Visual] She looks good in a pant suit. Now, a movie about everything else. [Film Title Card] [Visual Only] Hillary: The Movie [Visual Only] www.hillarythemovie.com “Questions” :30 [Image(s) of HRC on Screen] Who is Hillary Clinton? [JEFF GERTH Speaking & Visual] [S]he’s continually trying to redefine herself and figure out who she is . . . [ANN COULTER Speaking & Visual] [A]t least with Bill Clinton he was just good time Charlie. Hillary’s got an agenda . . . [DICK MORRIS Speaking & Visual] Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist . . . If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton . . . wait ’til you see the movie. [Film Title Card] [Visual Only] Hillary: The Movie. In theaters [on DVD] January 2007. [Visual Only] www.hillarythemovie.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">talk spase</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nome379 (no longer) exists</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advertising the film was not prohibited under BCRA[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The false claims in question: "Advertising the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" in the Introduction section and "The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts" in the Case summary section.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The District Court's actual decision clearly stated that the FEC already exempted the advertisements under safe harbor protections (but disclosure/disclaimer requirements still apply):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advertising the film was not prohibited under BCRA</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The District Court's actual decision clearly stated that the FEC already exempted the advertisements under safe harbor protections (but disclosure/disclaimer requirements still apply):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Citizens’ proposed advertisements present a different picture. The FEC agrees that Citizens may broadcast the advertisements because they fall within the safe harbor of the FEC’s prohibition regulations implementing WRTL. They did not advocate Senator Clinton’s election or defeat; instead, they proposed a commercial transaction—buy the DVD of The Movie. See WRTL, 127 S. Ct. at 2667; 11 C.F.R. § 114.15(b). Although Citizens may therefore run the advertisements, it complains that requirements of § 201 and § 311 of BCRA, 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(f)(2), 441d, impose on it burdens that violate the First Amendment."....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10 sec?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">txt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advertising the film was not prohibited under BCRA[</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The false claims in question: "Advertising the film would have been a violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" in the Introduction section and "The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts" in the Case summary section.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The District Court's actual decision clearly stated that the FEC already exempted the advertisements under safe harbor protections (but disclosure/disclaimer requirements still apply):</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Citizens’ proposed advertisements present a different picture. The FEC agrees that Citizens may broadcast the advertisements because they fall within the safe harbor of the FEC’s prohibition regulations implementing WRTL. They did not advocate Senator Clinton’s election or defeat; instead, they proposed a commercial transaction—buy the DVD of The Movie. See WRTL, 127 S. Ct. at 2667; 11 C.F.R. § 114.15(b). Although Citizens may therefore run the advertisements, it complains that requirements of § 201 and § 311 of BCRA, 2 U.S.C. §§ 434(f)(2), 441d, impose on it burdens that violate the First Amendment."....</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10 sec?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.npr.org/2004/06/28/3023147/are-fahrenheit-9-11-ads-campaign-spots</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">june overby</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">as if Michael Moore and his documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 needed any more publicity, the conservative group Citizens United weighed in just in time to help.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United has a reputation for being outspoken. Its own ads critical of former President Bill Clinton aired during his recent 60 Minutes interview. Now the group is making news again by calling for government limits on TV and radio ads for Moore's new movie, alleging they are tantamount to campaign ads and should be subject to federal laws on campaign finance.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">News of the Citizens United complaint was just part of the controversy over Fahrenheit 9/11, a media storm that helped the film top all other releases at the box office last weekend (and become the most successful documentary ever).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Helping to publicize the film was obviously not part of the motivation for Citizens United. But it's hard to see how the complaint will accomplish much else. Citizens United has two problems here. First, its complaint goes to the Federal Election Commission, which never rushes to judgment. It would be stunning if the FEC ruled one way or another before Election Day. And second, even if lightning struck and Citizens United won a speedy decision, it wouldn't make all that much difference BAD CODE] To understand why, you have to look at how the First Amendment and campaign finance laws collide. The current law, authored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), sets new limits on financing political ads on TV and radio. Candidates and party committees cannot run ads financed with corporate or union money; and, at certain key times on the calendar, independent organizations such as Citizens United cannot either.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The ban on corporate or union funding applies to any broadcast ad that identifies a candidate for federal office and airs within 60 days of Election Day, or 30 days of the convention that would nominate that candidate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Of course, these rules have an exception, for "news articles, editorials and commentary." Not even Congress wants to gag the free press. The question yet to be definitively answered: How far does the media exemption go?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Not far enough to protect the ads for Fahrenheit 9/11, according to David Bossie, president of Citizens United. He says that Moore, his producers or distributors can't advertise after July 30, since the ads -- at least those seen so far -- refer to a federal candidate: President George W. Bush. And the Republican convention begins Aug. 30. Bossie launched a full frontal assault last week: a complaint to the FEC, a copy to Attorney General John Ashcroft, letters to TV and radio stations around the country -- reminding them that they're legally required to keep records of airtime sales for political ads.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This raises a lot of questions that the FEC hasn't even begun to address up to now. For starters: Does Fahrenheit 9/11 qualify for exemption as "commentary"? If so, does the exemption cover ads for the commentary as well? Is the movie the product of a media company? And if it is, does that matter?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Or, as one WNYC listener asked me last week, what if Moore and his people rewrite the ads, so they don't show or refer to President Bush? The listener's suggestion: "Fahrenheit 9/11 -- the movie the federal government doesn't want you to see."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie's strategy -- at least the legal part of it -- rests on the novel idea that the FEC will act quickly and decisively. The idea would be less outlandish if the FEC had not just punted when confronted with essentially the same issue on the same day Bossie filed. Considering whether another documentary filmmaker qualified for the media exemption, the six commissioners (three Republican, three Democratic) agonized, fretted, and then voted to decide later.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even when the commission eventually decides, it's a good bet that if Moore loses, he'll go to court to challenge the ruling if the election hasn't already happened. And if it's after Election Day, who cares?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But Bossie may have another strategy at work too. Like Moore, he knows how to work the media. In the early 1990s, Bossie was a private investigator in the Whitewater case, equally skilled at finding information and getting it into the political debate. Later, he went to work for the House Government Reform Committee, where he spearheaded the panel's relentless probe of Clinton's campaign fundraising.[unethical acts at both]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More recently, Bossie has handled the FEC issue like a master, starting with a breathless article in a Capitol Hill newspaper, the day before the commission met. The headline: "'Fahrenheit 9/11' ban? Ads for Moore's movie could be stopped on July 30." A ban that soon seems unlikely. But we are going to see many more cases like this. McCain-Feingold significantly changed the way money flows into the political system. And with this high-stakes election getting more emotional all the time, more money than ever is pressing to get in.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Related NPR Stories</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MEDIA</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Phenomenon</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">MOVIES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Box-Office Success of Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Political Documentaries: Fact and Fiction</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Politics of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Web Resources</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United Complaint Against 'Fahrenheit 9/11'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/CitizensUnitedBackground.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United v FEC: Money, Corporations, and Politics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Douglas O. Linder (2019)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Money has been called the mother’s milk of politics.&nbsp; Without money, there can be no campaign.&nbsp; Money is needed to buy advertising, to rent halls for rallies, to pay campaign staff, and to fly or drive candidates from one rally to the next.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Early in our history, campaigns had expenses we might find surprising today. James Madison probably lost his race for a seat in the Virginia legislature in 1777 because he refused to provide liquor at his rallies.&nbsp; Why go listen to James when his opponent is offering free rum?&nbsp; George Washington knew better.&nbsp; He won one election after serving roughly one half gallon of alcohol for every vote he earned.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to Melvin Urofsky, author of the Money and Free Speech, it was the campaign of Andrew Jackson that ushered in the era of mass politicking.&nbsp; And it took off from there. By 1840, the presidential campaign of William Henry Harrison included rallies, parades with banners and floats, log-cabin songbooks and log-cabin newspapers, pictures of Harrison, and “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” handkerchiefs and badges.&nbsp; All of this, of course, cost money.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1864, Abraham Lincoln worried about the influence of corporate money in politics.&nbsp; Lincoln said, “As a result of the war, corporations have become enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow.&nbsp; The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its rule by preying on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the cost of campaigns continued to shoot up—and wealthy business owners were eager to help foot the bills. It cost $125,000 to get Lincoln re-elected in 1864.&nbsp; Eight years later, the Republican Party spent twice that much to elect Ulysses Grant.&nbsp; And it took about four times that much, close to a million dollars, to win the contested election of 1876 for Rutherford Hayes.&nbsp; By 1892, campaign costs had more than doubled again. Democrat Grover Cleveland spent well over $2 million to win election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William McKinley’s campaign in 1896 rested on retaining the gold standard, a policy favored by big industries.&nbsp; McKinley’s chief fundraiser, Marcus Hanna, told industrial leaders how much they were expected to contribute.&nbsp; Banks were to pay one-quarter of 1% of their capital.&nbsp; Other industrial leaders were assessed flat fees.&nbsp; Standard Oil chipped in $250,000.&nbsp; Chicago’s meat-packing houses sent in $400,000.&nbsp; Democratic candidate William Jennings Bryan got his own corporate sponsors, mainly the owners of silver mines in the West.&nbsp; McKinley won.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In response to the massive corporate funding of the McKinley campaign, four states enacted laws in 1897 banning all corporate contributions to political campaigns.&nbsp; All four states had voted for Bryan the year before.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">McKinley’s successor, Theodore Roosevelt, was the first president to call for an outright ban on corporate contributions.&nbsp; Roosevelt told Congress in 1905, quote, “All contributions by corporations to any political campaign or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A few years later, Congress managed to pass the first federal campaign finance act.&nbsp; It was a toothless law called the “Publicity Act.”&nbsp; It required disclosure of major donors and limited the size of contributions.&nbsp; But the law lacked any enforcement mechanism.&nbsp; There would not be a single prosecution in the 46 years the Publicity Act remained on the books.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Campaign spending kept shooting skyward.&nbsp; And, increasingly, most of the money came from a relative handful of very wealthy people.&nbsp; In the 1928 Hoover-Smith race, for example, just 1% of givers gave fully half of the total raised.&nbsp; In the 1952 Eisenhower-Stevenson race, over two thirds of campaign funding came from donors giving more than $2500, as measured in current dollars.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1971 that Congress passed the first truly significant piece of campaign reform legislation.&nbsp; By then, television had changed politics.&nbsp; Among other things, it made races much more expensive.&nbsp; Senator Edward Kennedy said, “Like a colossus of the ancient world, television stands astride our political system demanding tribute from every candidate for public office.&nbsp; Its appetite is insatiable, its impact unique.”&nbsp; Television turned fund-raising into a nearly full-time job.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Federal Election Campaign Reform Act was signed by President Nixon.&nbsp; It created a general taxpayer-paid fund for presidential elections, limited expenditures for media advertising, tightened reporting requirements, and imposed a ceiling on what candidates for federal office could spend on their own campaigns.&nbsp; Two years later, amendments to the law created the Federal Election Commission. Composed of three Republicans and three Democrats, serving 6-year terms.&nbsp; The amendments also set limits on individual contributions to campaigns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Reform Act became law largely for one reason.&nbsp; It favored incumbents.&nbsp; With the powers of their offices and their greater name recognition, they had an edge.&nbsp; With the law in place, they need not worry about millionaire opponents funding their own campaigns.&nbsp; Nor about opponents with unique fund-raising appeal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The campaign reform act was challenged in court in January 1975.&nbsp; The challenge was brought by some odd political bedfellows.&nbsp; They included the liberal senator from Minnesota Eugene McCarthy and conservative senator James Buckley from New York.&nbsp; The ACLU and the American Conservative Union.&nbsp; Litigants from across the political spectrum.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">They argued, first off, that money was speech.&nbsp; At least money donated to a political campaign or spent to further a campaign.&nbsp; Money spent, to say, buy a ticket to a play or football game would be conduct, not speech.&nbsp; Money for a campaign, they argued, is a form of political association protected by the First Amendment.&nbsp; Without money, no modern day campaign would be possible.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The government argued that even if the law restricted speech, it should be upheld.&nbsp; The law served to “level the playing field” and reduce the likelihood of corruption.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court gave both sides half a loaf.&nbsp; In Buckley v Valeo, the Court upheld the limit on individual contributions because a contributor’s money does not directly support the contributor’s free expression.&nbsp; It is the candidate, the recipient of the money, whose speech reaches the public.&nbsp; On the other hand, the law restricting the amount of money a rich candidate could spend on his or her own behalf was struck down.&nbsp; The candidate’s own expression was directly restricted.&nbsp; And besides, the Court said, a rich person can’t be corrupted by money that comes from himself.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Billionaires were freed to spend their billions. Good news for later self-funded candidates like Ross Perot.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From the 1980s on, donors increasingly exploited a large loophole in the campaign finance laws.&nbsp; The exclusion on limitations of so-called “soft money.”&nbsp; That is, not “hard money” given directly to a candidate for her campaign, but rather money given to a private entity—a “political action committee” or “PAC”—to spend in its own ways.&nbsp; PACs are required, theoretically, to spend their money in ways not coordinated with the candidate’s own campaign.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Soft money became the new thing.&nbsp; The new (some believed) corrupting influence in American politics.&nbsp; By the mid-1990s, the amount of soft money being spent on elections almost matched that of the campaigns themselves.&nbsp; PACs took many forms.&nbsp; There were labor union PACs, interest group PACs like the Sierra Club or NRA, and there were corporate PACs.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scandals, fund-raising abuses, massive campaign expenditures—all of these led to another attempt at campaign finance reform. The result, in 2002, was a law formally known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.&nbsp; It is more commonly known by the name of two Senate sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The McCain-Feingold Act did many things.&nbsp; It banned soft money contributions made directly to political parties.&nbsp; It imposed new limits on individual contributions of both soft money and hard money.&nbsp; Most importantly for our purposes, the law prohibited corporations and labor organizations from paying for any “electioneering communications” within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President Bush put his signature on the legislation.&nbsp; But he did so reluctantly.&nbsp; There was no signing ceremony, no press conference in the Rose Garden.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On the day of the signing, Senator Mitch McConnell filed a suit challenging the new law’s constitutionality. Meanwhile, he worked to undermine the law.&nbsp; He did so largely by controlling the process of nominations to the Federal Election Commission.&nbsp; According to former commission Brad Smith, McConnell said, “We need to put Republicans on the FEC who favor our point of view on regulation.'” The new appointees essentially refused to enforce the law.&nbsp; The result was a number of 3 to 3 deadlocks on enforcement actions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">McConnell’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering paid off.&nbsp; But his legal challenge to McCain-Feingold didn’t fare so well. By a 5-to-4 vote in 2003, the Court upheld nearly the entire law.&nbsp; It was the high-water mark for campaign reform efforts.&nbsp; A day of sunshine for reformers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the precedent of McConnell v FEC did not last long.&nbsp; The Court soon decided to reconsider the Act’s key requirement prohibiting corporate “electioneering communications” around election time.&nbsp; The case was Citizens United v the Federal Election Commission.&nbsp; It became one of the most hotly debated cases of our time.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The case was heard by a newly remade Supreme Court. John Roberts and Samuel Alito joined the Court in President George W. Bush’s second term. The loss of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and her replacement by Justice Alito, made all the difference. When a case is decided 5 to 4, it only takes one vote to change it.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And here we make a brief digression.&nbsp; You might well be asking—and many people still are—how is it possible for a corporation to have First Amendment rights?&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It turns out the Supreme Court decided long ago corporations were “persons” entitled to certain constitutional rights.&nbsp; In the 1888 case of Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, the Court said, quote, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name.”&nbsp; Over the decades that have followed, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this holding many times.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And free press fans should be happy that corporations do have at least some First Amendment rights.&nbsp; After all, the New York Times is a corporation.&nbsp; The Washington Post is a corporation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, that doesn’t mean corporations necessarily have exactly the same First Amendment rights as individuals.&nbsp; McConnell v FEC proved that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But to get back to our story.&nbsp; David Bosse watched Michael Moore’s political documentary “Farenheit 9-11” in 2004.&nbsp; It seems an unlikely choice for a conservative activist.&nbsp; But Bosse didn’t watch the movie for entertainment.&nbsp; He was doing research for Citizens United.&nbsp; Citizens United proclaims its mission to be to “reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security.”&nbsp; Citizens United receives some of its donations from corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Although Bosse disagreed with just about everything in Michael Moore’s movie, he came away impressed.&nbsp; He said, “I saw its ability to drive discussion.”&nbsp; He began to think about making movies for Citizens United that pushed a conservative agenda. “I wanted to counterpunch,” he said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He began by calling, he said, “Every friend in the conservative movement I knew.”&nbsp; Some were openly skeptical, others encouraging.&nbsp; Bosse said, “I’m just going to do it.”&nbsp; Even though, “I didn’t know the front of a camera from the back of a camera.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bosse’s first production was a movie called “Celsius 41.11.”&nbsp; It was a response to Moore’s film, both a tribute to George W. Bush’s war on terrorism and an attack on the 2004 Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry.&nbsp; The movie questioned Kerry’s anti-war record and attacked his qualifications for president.&nbsp; Celsius 41.11, by the way, according to film’s tagline, is "The Temperature at Which the Brain Begins to Die."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The movie was put together in record time.&nbsp; It opened in Washington DC in late December and was shown in 116 theaters across the country for a three-week run.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie had hoped to take out television ads promoting his movie.&nbsp; But there was a problem.&nbsp; The ads would run during the 60-day period before the general election.&nbsp; The McCain-Feingold law prohibited outside organizations and corporations from purchasing political ads on radio and television in the two months before elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bosse’s film won a lot of praise from movement conservatives.&nbsp; His political friends called and said, “Wow, you need to do more like that.”&nbsp; Bosse didn’t need convincing.&nbsp; He saw the medium of film as a potentially powerful force for political change.&nbsp; You can put a movie on television and deliver it right into people’s living rooms.&nbsp; You can have 90 solid minutes or more to persuade and energize voters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Two years after the success of “Celsius 41.11,” Bosse began thinking about making a movie about Hillary Clinton.&nbsp; At the time, she was considered the odds-on favorite to win the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.&nbsp; Bosse had worked in the 1990s for a House Committee that looked into the financial affairs of the Clintions.&nbsp; Bosse said, “Who knows more about Hillary Clinton than me? Very few people.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie recruited a “who’s-who” list of conservative commentators to appear as interview subjects in his film called “Hillary: The Movie.”&nbsp; People like Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Robert Novak, Larry Kudlow, and Newt Gingrich.&nbsp; Kathleen Willey appeared to discuss attacks by the Clintons that resulted from her alleging a sexual assault by Bill Clinton.&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">None of the commentators had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton.&nbsp; The Clintons were described as “power hungry.” “They’ll stop at nothing,” one said.&nbsp; They were accused of covering up evidence of wrong-doing.&nbsp; One commentator described Clinton’s Presidential Library as “Little Rock’s Fort Knox.”&nbsp; Dick Morris said, “Hillary Clinton is the closest thing we have in this country to a European socialist.”&nbsp; The movie ends darkly with Morris saying, “We must never forget the fundamental danger that this woman poses to every value we hold dear.&nbsp; You see, I know her.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The movie cost over one million dollars to produce.&nbsp; But Citizens United was worried.&nbsp; It suddenly appeared that the wheels were coming off Clinton’s campaign.&nbsp; She unexpectedly lost the caucuses in Iowa to Barrack Obama.&nbsp; If the movie didn’t come out soon, and Clinton’s campaign continued to fall apart, who would pay money to see the movie?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bosse decided to release the movie as soon as possible—well ahead of when he originally intended.&nbsp; He quickly put together television ads promoting the movie’s release.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United knew full well that the ads would run afoul of restrictions in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.&nbsp; In fact, that was probably the point.&nbsp; Part of a strategy to undo McCain-Feingold.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bosse and Citizens United argued they had a First Amendment right to advertise their movie anytime they wanted to, even during a campaign. Bosse objected to the FEC’s insistence that ads for the movie contain an explicit disclaimer.&nbsp; Bosse complained that the disclaimer would turn the spot into a political ad and detract from its effectiveness.&nbsp; “All I’m trying to do is make people pick up a movie ticket,” he said. [was it still in theaters?]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The FEC also said it would be an illegal campaign contribution for Citizens United to pay a cable company to make the movie available on video and demand.&nbsp; Moreover, if the combined gifts funding the movie exceeded $3000, all the donors’ names would have to be disclosed.&nbsp; In the view of the FEC, what Citizens United did was no different than if General Motors or Google made a movie favoring a particular candidate.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United filed suit against the Federal Election Commission.&nbsp; Bosse saw the FEC’s restrictions as a blatant First Amendment violation.&nbsp; “It’s the First Amendment,” he said.&nbsp; “The first one!”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The case was first heard by a panel of three federal district court judges.&nbsp; The court sided with the FEC.&nbsp; In the court’s view the movie was a 90-minute campaign ad arguing that Senator Clinton is unfit for office and that viewers should vote against her.&nbsp; The court held that the FEC correctly applied the McCain-Feingold law and that the law was constitutional.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bossie and his legal team appealed directly to the Supreme Court. They hired a Dream Team of lawyers.&nbsp; Chief among them was Ted Olson, former solicitor general of the United States. He was joined by Citizens United counsel, Michael Boos, and Floyd Abrams, a highly respected First Amendment lawyer who worked on the Pentagon Papers case.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For Olson, the case was special.&nbsp; Citizens United had dedicated the movie “Hillary” to his wife, Barbara Olson.&nbsp; Barbara Olson was a conservative commentator who was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.&nbsp; She was also a Clinton critic and author of the book, "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In Bossie’s view, Ted Olson was "singularly responsible for our winning this case." Olson decided to transform the case from a narrow one challenging a few specific provisions of McCain-Feingold into an all-out assault on the law's constitutionality.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He argued that there McCain-Feingold law created a slippery slope that could lead to an evisceration of protection for crore political speech.&nbsp; He urged the Court to overturn the 2003 McConnell decision and free corporations to make whatever political pitches they chose to make.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concern about the slippery slope was evident when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments.&nbsp; The attorney for the FEC, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, was asked if the government could ban the publication of a book if it mentioned a candidate for office within the election time frame.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stewart said that it could. "That's pretty incredible," Justice Samuel Alito said.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Then came questions about electronic devices such as the Kindle. "If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"That's correct," Stewart replied.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This was too much for the Court’s conservatives. The government’s answers to the hypotheticals sent a chill down the Supreme Court," Bossie said.&nbsp; Bossie said the slippery slope argument turned justices against the FEC and in favor of Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stewart tried to argue for the FEC that the case should be decided on narrow grounds.&nbsp; There was no need to reconsider the large First Amendment question about the limitations on corporate speech.&nbsp; But it they did go there, the law should be upheld.&nbsp; Even direct regulation of political speech is permissible if the government can show a “compelling need” for the regulation.&nbsp; And preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption was a compelling justification.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the majority was skeptical.&nbsp; Why should speech from corporations be more corrupting than speech from individuals?&nbsp; Can’t we trust citizens to decide the value of speech for themselves?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United had its five votes.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The opinion for the majority was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.&nbsp; He invalidated McCain-Feingold’s most contested provision.&nbsp; The provision that barred corporations from using their general treasury funds for express advocacy or electioneering communications.&nbsp; The law applied to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy said that under the law, many forms of political speech became felonies.&nbsp; He gave some examples:&nbsp; “The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice Kennedy began his analysis by noting, “The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He said it was well established that “political speech of corporations or other associations should not be treated differently simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’” Political speech is no less valuable, Kennedy said, when it “comes from a corporation rather than an individual.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy described the censorship presented by the case as “vast in its reach.”&nbsp; He wrote, “The Government has muffled the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy.” And “the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy said what the government was doing through the McCain-Feingold law amounted to nothing less than “thought control.”&nbsp; Kennedy wrote, “The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether the movie “Hillary” was fair or not was beside the point.&nbsp; The Court opinion notes, “Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kennedy concluded, “The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.”&nbsp; &nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The decision was ironical in one sense.&nbsp; Citizen United’s original objections to the law were the only part of the law that survived.&nbsp; The Court upheld McCain-Feingold’s disclaimer and donor disclosure requirements.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice Stevens wrote for the Court’s four dissenters.&nbsp; He called the decision “profoundly misguided.”&nbsp; He said he “emphatically dissented” from the Court’ principal holding.&nbsp; It threatened, he said, to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation and damage the Supreme Court as an institution.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens called the decision “backwards in many senses.” He wrote, “It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality.”&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the minds of the four dissenters, the strong “societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption” provided more than enough justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stevens concluded by calling the decision “a rejection of the common sense of the American people.”&nbsp; He noted that the need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government has been recognized since the nation’s founding.&nbsp; And that the corrupting potential of corporate electioneering has been a major concern “since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”&nbsp; Stevens wrote, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The conservative activists at Citizens United were thrilled with the ruling.&nbsp; Citizens United spent about $1.25 million in legal fees on the case -- so much, Bossie said, that it "makes you cry." But, he said, it was worth every dollar.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just days after the Citizens United decision, a new president gave his first State of the Union speech.&nbsp; Near the end of the speech, President Barrack Obama had a few things to say about the decision.&nbsp; He said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." Obama added, “I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Democratic lawmakers stood to cheer and applaud.&nbsp; In the second row of the House chamber, a justice of the Supreme Court had a different reaction. "Not true, not true," Justice Alito appeared to say, as he shook his head and furrowed his brow.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Spending soared in the first election after Citizens United.&nbsp; Spending in congressional races jumped 46 percent from the election before.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fred Wertheimer had worked long and hard on the issue of campaign reform.&nbsp; Wertheimer called Citizens United “a disaster for the American people” and “the most radical and destructive campaign finance decision in Supreme Court history.” The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein compared the case to the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision. Ornstein said, “The Roberts court is going to go down in history in the same way Chief Justice Roger Taney and his court went down in history with Dred Scott.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senator John McCain had a warning.&nbsp; “I promise you, there will be huge scandals,” he said. “There’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it, and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Polls showed that over two-thirds of Americans supported a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.&nbsp; Is that likely to happen?&nbsp; Constitutional amendments are hard.&nbsp; They are almost impossible without the broad support of both parties.&nbsp; Citizens United is likely to remain the law, whatever most of the public might think about it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Exploring First Amendment Law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">clinton cash bannon april 2017</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/steve-bannon-donald-trump-films-documentary-white-house-us-election-win-bill-hillary-clinton-a7676586.html</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stephen Bannon could barely finish his sentences as he implored the listeners of his Breitbart News radio show to see the new movie Clinton Cash.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It was July 20, the homestretch of the 2016 presidential campaign, and Bannon was describing Bill and Hillary Clinton as “scumbags” and “bandits” who had made millions of dollars through political connections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Hillary and Bill Clinton are the two single biggest grifters ever to run for president of the United States,” Bannon told his guest, Peter Schweizer, the author of the book behind the movie.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bannon, now President Donald Trump's chief strategist, framed his radio show that day as an urgent effort to reveal important information for voters - but there was more to it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The show and Clinton Cash were components of an intricate multimedia machine comprising non-profit organisations and private companies that Bannon had leveraged to advance his conservative, populist agenda and bring in millions of dollars. That effort ultimately helped propel Trump into the White House and Bannon into national prominence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A close look behind Bannon's radio broadcast that day offers insights about how that machine worked.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As it happened, the research behind Clinton Cash had been funded by the Government Accountability Institute, or the GAI, a tax-exempt public charity that Bannon had created a few years earlier and that had paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars as executive chairman, documents show.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Clinton Cash had been produced by Glittering Steel and Bannon Film Industries, two companies owned by Bannon, who was one of the screenwriters.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">​Bannon also was an owner of ARC Entertainment, the firm listed as distributor of the film.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And he was receiving a six-figure salary as executive chairman of Breitbart News, which heavily promoted the film through Bannon's radio programme and its controversial website.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There's no telling how many in his audience understood the connections. Many of the links are scattered among corporate, court and tax records, as well as in a financial disclosure report for 2016 that the White House released last week.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC65581/text?s=1&r=2</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;CITIZENS UNITED AT 10: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR DEMOCRACY AND POTENTIAL</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RESPONSES BY CONGRESS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HEARING</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BEFORE THE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL JUSTICE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OF THE</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SECOND SESSION</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">_</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FEBRUARY 6, 2020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">WITNESSES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Honorable Ted Deutch, Member of Congress</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 9</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 34</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 39</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 41</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner, Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 45</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 48</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 53</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 55</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor of Law, Capital University Law School</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 56</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 58</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Professor of Law, Stetson University</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">College of Law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oral Testimony............................................... 71</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prepared Testimony........................................... 73</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Statement by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, submitted by the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Honorable Steve Cohen, Chairman, Subcommittee on the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties................ 6</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Items for the record submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 10</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Items for the record submitted by the Mary Gay Scanlon, Committee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">on the Judiciary............................................... 92</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Items for the record submitted by the Steve Cohen, Committee on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the Judiciary.................................................. 106</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Weissman.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Our next witness is Mr. Bradley Smith. Rarely is a witness</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">thanked for coming and complimented by the other side, so you</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">are special.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bradley Smith holds the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nault Professor of Law position at Capital University Law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">School. He is one of the nation's leading authorities on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">election law and campaign finance, and co-author of Voting</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rights and Election Law,'' a leading casebook in the field. He</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">previously served for five years as a member of the FEC and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chair of the Commission in 2004.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He received his J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Do any of you ever get accepted at another school?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Laughter.]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And his B.A. from Kalamazoo College.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor, you are recognized.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TESTIMONY OF BRADLEY SMITH</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">committee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;I guess I would begin simply by saying that repeatedly</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">calling a decision a disaster doesn't really make it so, and we</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">haven't really heard much evidence that actually ties the idea</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that people can't enact their preferences to anything that has</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">come about from Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;In fact, Citizens United has had a number of beneficial</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">effects on American society. We were told that it would lead to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an oligarchy, an entrenched group of people who would strangle</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">American democracy. And yet instead, in the years since</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United, politics in America has been more fluid.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Congressional incumbent reelection rates have declined. That</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">may not be good news for all of you, but it cuts against</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">certainly the argument that has been made against Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;We have seen that either Congress or the presidency has</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">changed hands in four of the five election cycles since</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United. There are more newcomers in Congress by about</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">40 percent each time around. That may be good news for some of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">you who are among those newcomers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Outsiders such as the President himself, such as at least a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">contender to the President in the general election, Senator</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sanders, people such as Representative Ocasio-Cortez or former</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Representative Braut have been complete outsiders who have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dramatically shaken up the system and defeated entrenched</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">insiders, typically by spending far less money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We find that the trend of more women being elected to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">office has continued, and there are other things that are just</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">kind of interesting. For example, the rate of spending increase</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in American politics has actually declined considerably since</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United. I don't think that is because of Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United, but it certainly cuts against the notion that this is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">some disaster leading to this massive explosion in spending. It</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">is just not really so.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;We find that most money in politics, dramatically so, still</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">comes from individuals in amounts limited under the law. The</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">vast majority still comes in limited individual contributions.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br /></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But corporate contributions, which make up at most--I don't</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">know how we want to calculate it and what we do with this small</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">percentage of money, about 2 or 3 percent that is so-called</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dark money,'' how much we think that might be corporate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;If we take the worst case, so to speak, the highest case</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">scenario, we are talking about 5 percent of spending, maybe 6</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">percent coming from for-profit corporations. That is hardly</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">drowning anybody out. And, in fact, it is a good thing. The</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">American people have a right to hear those voices, they should</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">hear those voices, and polling data shows that they actually</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">want to hear those voices and believe that business has a right</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to comment on issues of concern.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Finally, it is important to remember what the case was all</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">about. It was the position of the United States Government that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">it could censor a book or a movie if that book or movie was at</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">any stage produced or distributed with corporate funds, like</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">every other book or movie you have ever bought on Amazon or in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">a book store or seen in a theater or seen on cable or streaming</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">television. That was the position of the government, that you</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">could censor this. In that respect, the position that four</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">members of the Supreme Court actually endorsed that is the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">truly radical view that we saw in Citizens United.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;We have heard a lot in both the opening panel and from my</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">colleagues here about all these policy initiatives that have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">been blocked, and it is curious to me that they all happen to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">be policy preferences of the American political left. There is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nothing wrong with the political left having policy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">preferences, but the idea that you are not able to enact your</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">policy preferences unless you can kneecap people who oppose</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">those is hardly something that the First Amendment endorses.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, that is why we have a First Amendment, so you can't</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">kneecap your opponents in order to shut them up so that you can</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pass whatever policies you want.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;I find it interesting. We had the NRA used as an example.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The NRA has 3 to 5 million members. These are U.S. citizens,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">people who are out there, and they care intensely about these</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">issues. They talk to their neighbors and they work on these</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">issues, and that is why these things sometimes don't come</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">through.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I remind you, it is not impossible to pass legislation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Medicare, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rights Act, these things all passed when contributions even</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from individuals were unlimited and almost never reported</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">because there was no enforcement mechanism even on reporting.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;So I think when we look at things more rationally, we see</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that while the American people certainly don't like Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United when they are asked specific questions like Do you</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">think corporations should be able to speak in elections?'',</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">when we ask Do you think Citizens United should have been</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">able to show its movie?'', we find that majorities, in some</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cases substantial majorities, do, in fact, favor those</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">positions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;So again, I would say Citizens United has been good for the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United States, but mostly it is really good for the First</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amendment precisely because it does what the First Amendment is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">supposed to do. It is a check.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thank you.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[The statement of Mr. Smith follows:]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Finally, our last witness is Ms. Ciara Spelliscy. She is a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor of Law at Stetson College of Law in Florida. She</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">teaches election law, corporate governance, business entities,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and constitutional law. Prior to joining Stetson's faculty she</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">was Counsel to the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Justice at NYU School of Law, where she provided guidance on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the issue of money in politics. She was a staffer for Richard</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Durbin up here on the Hill.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">She received her J.D. from Columbia University and her A.B.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">from Harvard.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor, you are recognized for 5 minutes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">TESTIMONY OF CIARA TORRES-SPELLISCY</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. Thank you. Good morning. My name is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. I live in a swing district in the swing</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">state of Florida. My law students are Republicans, Democrats,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and Independents, and I am here to tell you that American</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">voters are worried about the state of our elections after the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">attacks on our democracy in 2016.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;What American voters see from Congress and from the Federal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Election Commission is not reassuring. It looks like they</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cannot get out of their own way to protect the integrity of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">American elections. This was true before 2016, but after 2016</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">it is nothing short of excruciating to watch Congress and the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FEC not act in the face of eager enemies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now without a quorum, the FEC is more powerless than ever</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">at a time when the 2020 election already has candidate debates,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">large-scale rallies, primary votes, and big political</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fundraising to the tune of over $2 billion already.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Nearly a decade ago, I told Congress right after Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United that I could predict two problems with inviting</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporate money into our democracy: a lack of shareholder</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">consent, and a lack of transparency. And I wish my prediction</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">had not come true, but it did.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today I will focus on the lack of transparency, which is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">better known as the dark money problem. Dark money has</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">blanketed our elections since 2008. To date, over a billion</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dollars in dark money has been spent in Federal elections</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">alone. With dark money you can see the public dance, but you</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">can't see the puppeteer. And after the 2016 election, Americans</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">really deserve to know whether any of those puppeteers were</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">foreign nationals or foreign governments.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;As I note in my book, Political Brands, we know from the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">redacted Mueller Report, as well as indictments of Russians by</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the Special Counsel's Office, that Russians were trying to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">influence the 2016 election, including by purchasing political</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ads on Facebook with rubles. In nearly any other area of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">law, what happens with dark money would be akin to money</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">laundering. But in election law, most dark money is actually</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">legal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;The FEC is the primary regulator with the ability to stop</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dark money, and instead they have basically done nothing. The</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FEC could have started rulemakings to end dark money even</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">before Citizens United, because the problem appeared before</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2010. The typical way that dark money is created is by spending</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">through an opaque non-profit, like a 501(c)(4) or a 501(c)(6),</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and the porous rules at the FEC have allowed donors to remain</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">anonymous. The only change that has come was at the order of a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Federal court in CREW v. FEC.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One thing American voters still do not know is whether dark</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money is hiding illegal foreign money. And because the FEC has</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">largely been stuck in deadlocks, even investigations or</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">punishment for foreign spending has largely been lacking.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As I discussed in my first book, Corporate Citizen, in a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">particularly colorful episode, a foreign pornographer spent in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">a Los Angeles election in 2012. This spending violated</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">longstanding bans on foreign money in American elections,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">whether they are Federal, state, or local. But the FEC would</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">not enforce the law against the foreign pornographer. If the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FEC is not going to stand up to a foreign pornographer, it begs</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the question who would they stand up against?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This general lack of enforcement against foreign spending</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">has sent a terrible message to anyone who was paying attention.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The message is that campaign finance laws are basically not</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">being enforced at the Federal level by the FEC, and as American</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">voters face 2020, the Department of Justice is the only cop</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">left on the beat. But DOJ can only enforce willful and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">egregious violations of law. This leaves a vast wasteland of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unenforced campaign finance laws where cheating and corner-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cutting is all but invited.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And this happens as American voters are asked to choose the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">next president, all of the members of the House, a third of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senate, 11 governors, and 45 state legislatures.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given the experience of 2016 with Russians breaking</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">American election laws with abandon, the lesson for North</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Korea, China, Iran, or any other hostile nation is that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">interference in our elections can be done with little</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">consequence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So the FEC needs a full complement of commissioners so that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">they can at least act. And if you are serious about reform, you</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">need to add an additional seat to the FEC so that, like every</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">other Federal agency, they have an odd number of commissioners</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">so that they can enforce the law instead of ending in a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">deadlock.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And you can improve disclosure by either changing election</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">laws or changing securities laws, or possibly both. And, of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">course, you could expand what Congress can constitutionally</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">regulate if the Constitution is amended to address Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United and other campaign finance cases like Buckley.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But in our constitutional system, the fate of the nation is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in your hands. Thank you.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[The statement of Ms. Torres-Spelliscy follows:]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Mr. Raskin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Welcome to all of our distinguished witnesses today, and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">all of the natural persons who have come to participate in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">today's proceeding.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The first thing that I want to point out is that Citizens</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">United did not enlarge the free speech rights of any citizen in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the United States, not even CEOs or corporate executives who</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">could spend already whatever they wanted as independent</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">expenditures under Buckley v. Valeo. All that Citizens United</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">did was to transform every corporate treasury in America into a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">potential political slush fund and thereby authorize and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">empower the CEOs of the corporations to spend whatever they</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wanted of other people's money in the corporate treasuries in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">political campaigns.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;This declaration did transform, to my understanding, two</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">centuries of jurisprudential understanding of what a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporation is. You can go back to Chief Justice John</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Marshall's opinion in 1819 in the Dartmouth College v. Woodward</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">case, where he said that a corporation is an artificial entity,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">possessing only the rights conferred upon it by the state</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">legislature and not the constitutional rights of the people.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And yet the Roberts court in Citizens United endowed private</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporations, these invisible, intangible, artificial entities,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">with the political rights of the people, essentially arming the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CEOs with the power to spend other people's money, as Justice</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brandeis termed it, in political campaigns. And for all of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">reasons stated by the witnesses, that has occasioned a dramatic</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">change in the character and the quality of American politics.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, I favor a constitutional amendment for the same reason</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that I support all the constitutional amendments that have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">reversed reactionary jurisprudence by the Supreme Court. That</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">is how we got women's suffrage in the 19th Amendment which</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">toppled the Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">saying that women did not get the right under the 14th or 15th</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amendment. The 14th Amendment, and the 15th and 13th, of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">course, reversed the Supreme Court's reactionary decision in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the Dred Scott case before the Civil War. It is how we got the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">26th Amendment. It is how we got the 24th Amendment. Most of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">our amendments have been democracy-deepening, suffrage-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">enlarging, democracy-perfecting amendments where the people</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">have to overturn pinched and reactionary understandings of the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supreme Court.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;But until we get there, I wanted to take up an issue that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">comes out of Citizens United, because Justice Kennedy's conceit</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in his majority opinion is that the corporations are speaking</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">for the shareholders, the corporations derive their First</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amendment political rights from the First Amendment rights of</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the human beings who actually own stock in the corporation.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">there is a problem, which is that the corporations are spending</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">all of this money and putting money into political campaigns</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and dark money channels and so on without ever consulting the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">shareholders themselves; and, in fact, in most cases not even</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">notifying the shareholders. And they have been doing everything</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in their power to fight in both the SEC and the FEC efforts to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">get just notice to people of how their money in the corporation</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">is being spent.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;I introduced a measure which became part of H.R. 1 which I</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">call Shareholders United. Shareholders United says that no</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporation shall be allowed to spend any money in politics</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">until you have first notified the shareholders of the proposal</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and they are authorized in advance by majority vote that their</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money be spent in a political campaign.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I am wondering if each of you, if you could go quickly--and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">forgive us because we have our 5-minute stricture here. But</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">would you agree that as long as we are living under the regime</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of Citizens United, that the shareholders should have the right</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to be apprised of proposed political spending by corporations</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of their money, and they should have the right to vote on it? I</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">know there is an argument that there should have to be a 100</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">percent vote, but at the very least there should be a majority</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">vote before the corporation goes ahead and spends their money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And I could start with you, Madam Chair.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ms. Weintraub. Yes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Weissman. Absolutely. And as you know, more than a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">million people have requested the SEC to issue a rule to do</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">exactly what you are suggesting.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Raskin. Professor Smith, do you agree?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Smith. No. This is a complex question of corporate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">governance and there are many things corporations do, including</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">things that affect politics, that they don't require</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">shareholder approval for.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Mr. Raskin. Okay. And Professor Spelliscy?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ms. Torres-Spelliscy. I wholeheartedly endorse your bill. I</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">think shareholders should have the right to consent to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporate political spending, and that would bring American law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in line with the U.K., where shareholders in U.K. companies do</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">have the right to pre-approve corporate political spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Raskin. Okay.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Raskin.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Raskin. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cline, you are recognized for 5 minutes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I would note that one of the things that we have that the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.K. doesn't have is the First Amendment.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;The majority in Citizens United maintain that political</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">justified by a governmental interest in providing the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">electorate with information about election-related spending</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">resources.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">political advertising sponsors and upheld the ban on direct</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;What it did not do is overturn centuries of law. Rather, it</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">overturned portions of McCain-Feingold which had become law in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2002, another law that went into effect in the 1940s, and two</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supreme Court decisions in whole or in part, Austin v. Michigan</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chamber of Commerce from 1990 and McConnell v. FEC from 2003.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So I would ask Professor Smith, in your prepared testimony</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">you quote part of the oral argument in Citizens United in which</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the government argues that as a matter of constitutional law it</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">can ban books or movies if corporate resources are used in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">their production or distribution. Is that correct?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Smith. Yes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cline. And can we talk about whether this is really a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">danger?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Smith. Yes. Citizens United was rescheduled after that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">first oral argument, and in the second oral argument then-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Solicitor General Kagan argued, well, we would never actually</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">do that. But, in fact, the FEC from time to time has done that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a little-noticed 1987 advisory opinion, the FEC informed</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. News and World Report that their publication of a book</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">would not be exempt under the press exemption because it was</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">not a periodical, that it would therefore be potentially</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">illegal to distribute a book.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Now, maybe that wasn't noticed so much because in the end</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">U.S. News wasn't really going to do that. It was dismissed on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">other grounds. But the FEC made that point.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Just in the last decade, in 5642, the FEC spent almost two</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">years investigating publication and distribution of a book, one</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that was written by George Soros, and it was eventually</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">dismissed. But it should be noted that the General Counsel in</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that case recommended that the FEC find a violation due to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">distribution of a book about policy, a book called The Bubble</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of American Supremacy, because it included such radical</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">statements as It is not enough to defeat President Bush at</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the polls,'' and We can regain the moral high ground only by</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">rejecting President Bush when he stands for reelection,'' and</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that was considered enough that that book could have been</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">potentially banned.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So I do think it is a real issue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I would also note that when Justice Kagan, or now-Justice</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Kagan, then-Solicitor General Kagan, was asked what about</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pamphlets, she said pamphlets we ban, we definitely go in for</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">pamphlets.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;I have here a copy of Common Sense, the great revolutionary</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tract by Thomas Paine. It is 54, 58 pages. That includes a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">couple of cover pages here. Is this a book or a pamphlet? I</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">will ask you all to vote for it because you are the legislators</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">who will get to decide whether or not this can be published or</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">whether or not this can be banned as a pamphlet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Cline. Thank you.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;Some of our Democratic colleagues in the Senate have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">previously introduced a constitutional amendment to undo or</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">overturn Citizens United. The amendment would allow Congress to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">regulate the giving and spending of money on political advocacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">but explicitly carves out the press. Do you have any views on</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that approach?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mr. Smith. Well again, if I may, Mr. Cline, I want to</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">briefly address something that my old colleague--we were law</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">professors going back. You got your J.D. from Harvard, too; is</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">that right?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should probably note that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">again.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But in any case, one thing I did want to comment, though,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">is that who has benefitted--</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...we haven't seen this torrent of&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">money from Fortune 100 companies. The corporations that have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">benefitted are small corporations, and most of those</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporations can't afford to operate a PAC, they can't afford</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">to have a lobbyist here, and those are the corporations that</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">are really benefitting from this, and those are closely held</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">corporations where I think we can usually find the shareholder</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">benefits.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/Bank/trump-alvin-bragg/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx an 3 23</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jon Stewart: Here’s why Trump was elected president in the first place</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alex Henderson March 28, 2023</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Former President Donald Trump predicted that on Tuesday, March 21, he would be arrested in connection with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Jr.'s investigation of alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. But a week later, on Tuesday morning, March 28, such an arrest had yet to materialize. Trump had not been indicted.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nonetheless, Bragg's investigation continues. And the former president is also facing two separate criminal probes from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and special counsel Jack Smith as well as a criminal probe from Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Comedian Jon Stewart, who formerly hosted "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central and now hosts "The Problem With Jon Stewart" on Apple TV+, weighed in on Trump's legal problems during a late March appearance on CNN.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE:Why the threat of 'Trumpist violence' must not 'be discounted': political science professor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CNN host Fareed Zakaria, interviewing the 60-year-old Stewart, noted fears that reports of a possible Trump indictment are "going to turn him into a martyr."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stewart sarcastically responded, "The idea that someone may face accountability who's that rich and powerful is outrageous. This country shouldn't stand for it."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stewart's tone became serious, however, when he added, "Fareed, we either have the rule of law, or we have no rule of law. The rule of law does not take into account if that might make you a martyr to somebody. I'd much rather the conservation be: What is the law? What exactly are we saying that he did? His lawyer went to jail for the same situation for a couple of years."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The former Trump attorney that Stewart is referring to is Michael Cohen, who has testified that he made hush money payments to Daniels on Trump's behalf. Cohen was sentenced to three years in federal prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion and campaign finance violations, but he did not serve the entire sentence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE:Trump's MAGA apologists show their 'demagoguery' with bogus attacks on DA Bragg: ex-federal prosecutor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stewart told Zakaria, "The reason why Donald Trump became popular in the first place and the reason (for) these populist movements is that the citizenry have become fed up with the lack of accountability for those in power. We have no accountability in our financial systems; we have no accountability for the bankers…. And instead of bringing accountability to the rampant corruption that surrounds our government and our financial systems, the Supreme Court just changed the definition of corruption rather than prosecuting it…. You can influence-peddle as long as you don't explicitly say, 'By the way, this money, is so that I may influence this law specifically.'"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE:Why the threat of 'Trumpist violence' must not 'be discounted': political science professor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch the full video below or at this link.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jon Stewart: This is why Trump became popular in the first place</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.youtube.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donald Trump attacks 'racist' Alvin Bragg and 'horseface' Stormy Daniels in social media rant ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">'Going full fascist': Morning Joe blasts Trump’s latest 'dehumanizing' attack on Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alvin Bragg smacks down Jim Jordan: No 'legitimate basis for ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York DA Alvin Bragg responds to requests on Trump ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alvin Bragg: Manhattan DA tells CNN that his office's investigation of ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Manhattan DA Bragg privately warns of intimidation after Trump calls ... ›</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/01/five-realities-five-years-after-the-post-citizens-united-landscape/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">YIKES SEE AMICUS</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">attempt to use NAACP v Ala/14th to make corp dark $ CONST PROTECTED?!</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The negative effects that these new amicus campaigns have on our democ-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">racy are twofold. The wealthy few fund the campaigns, excluding the majority</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">of Americans from the process and exacerbating preexisting countermajoritarian</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">and inequality concerns. And without a mechanism for disclosure, the general</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">public currently does not, and cannot, know how judicial reasoning is influenced</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">by masked private actors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Donors have reaped enormous returns on their investments. As I have doc-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">umented, the Roberts Court has handed down over eighty partisan Republican</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">5-4 decisions 87 that benefit an easily identifiable Republican Party-donor inter-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">est.88</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These include decisions that remove constraints on anonymous giving</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(e.g., Citizens United v. FEC, 89 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta 90), as</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">well as decisions that weaken the power of countervailing institutions like labor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unions (e.g., Janus v. American Federation of State, City & Municipal Employees,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">158</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Council 3191), regulatory agencies (e.g., Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bureau92), and the civil jury (e.g., Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis93).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The effects of this litigation strategy on our democracy are frightening: the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">courts are becoming an arena for enacting policies by judicial decree that are too</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unpopular to pass through democratically elected legislatures. These coordi-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">nated efforts warp the judiciary toward anonymous, ultrawealthy donor inter-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ests, all without the public ever learning about the role of dark-money interests</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">in shaping the law. The Supreme Court was already, by its nature, an avenue for</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">countermajoritarian ideas and policies to prosper.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But as Barry Friedman ex-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">plains, especially when the Court is acting during a period of judicial suprem-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">acy—as it arguably is now—the countermajoritarian aspect of the institution will</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">flourish.94 Alongside those concerns, the emergence of the dark-money amicus</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">machine increases the probability that the Court’s rulings will run counter to the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">will of the American people (i.e., counter to democracy), and instead for the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">benefit of the hidden interests that had a secret hand in putting Justices on the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Court and then filed masked amicus briefs...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">151</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sure enough, Chief Justice Roberts’s ruling in favor of the Koch network—a</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">6-3 decision with all Republican-appointed Justices in the majority—cast doubt</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">on the constitutionality of disclosure requirements of any kind, turbocharging</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the kind of secretive influence through which the Koch operation and its allies</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">already dominate the public sphere.56</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Significantly, many of the donors behind these amici lobbied for the confir-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">mation of the Justices hearing the case. For instance, Americans for Prosperity,</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">the 501(c)(4) group directly affiliated with the plaintiff Foundation, spent “mil-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lions” of dollars on a “Full Scale Campaign” to confirm Justice Barrett to the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bench while AFPF’s cert petition was pending before the Court.57</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yet, in spite of all this lobbying on her behalf by an affiliate of one of the parties, Justice Barrett</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">rebuffed calls for her recusal in this matter by me and others—a recusal seem-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ingly required under the Court’s own due-process precedent58—and heard the</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">case anyway.59</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">D. Amicus Briefs and Dark-Money Influence on the Courts</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Amicus briefs play an important role in the appellate process. Indeed, I have</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">filed many myself.60 Interested parties should be able to use amicus briefs to ad-</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">vance their view of the law or their conception of the public interest or to educate</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/F7.WhitehouseFinalDraftWeb_v4zwakx5.pdf</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">{{</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">an ah 8 22</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2022/08/anonymous-dark-money-destructive-influemce/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2009, critics of the decision — including dissenters on the High Court — predicted that elections in the United States would be inundated with a flood of dark money. In his dissent, the late Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald R. Ford nominee, stressed that the ruling “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation” and warned, “A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thirteen years later, critics of the Citizens United decision continued to argue that Republican Stephens was spot on in his dissent. Articles on the influence of dark money have appeared in major publications, and New York Times reporters Kenneth P. Vogel and Shane Goldmacher, on August 22, reported that the largest political donation in U.S. history had come from “electronics manufacturing mogul” Barre Seid — who gave $1.6 billion to a group led by GOP activist and Federalist Society Co-Chairman Leonard A. Leo.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Journalists David Sirota and Joel Warner examine the influence of dark money in an op-ed published by The Guardian GUK on August 29, citing Seid’s secretive donation as an especially blatant example.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: 'A kingmaker in conservative big money politics': This electronics mogul made the 'biggest' GOP donation ever</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This week, the Lever, ProPublica and the New York Times discovered the largest known political advocacy donation in American history,” Sirota and Warner explain. “We exposed a reclusive billionaire’s secret transfer of $1.6bn to a political group controlled by the Republican operative Leonard Leo, who spearheaded the construction of a conservative Supreme Court supermajority to end abortion, block government regulations, stymie the fight against climate change and limit voting rights. This anonymous donation — which flowed to a tax-exempt trust that was never disclosed in any public record or database — was probably completely legal.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sirota and Warner continue, “Whether you support or abhor Leo’s crusade, we should be able to agree on one larger non-partisan principle: such enormous sums of money should not be able to influence elections, lawmakers, judicial nominations and public policy in secret. And we should not have to rely on a rare leak to learn basic campaign finance facts that should be freely available to anyone. Unfortunately, thanks to our outdated laws, those facts are now hidden behind anonymity, shell companies and shadowy political groups. America is long overdue for an overhaul of its political disclosure laws — and news organizations in particular should be leading the charge for reform.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">According to Sirota and Warner, dark money’s negative influence on U.S. politics is only “getting worse.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In 2020 alone, more than $1bn worth of dark money flooded around weak disclosure rules and into America’s elections, financing Super PACs, ad blitzes, mailers and door-knocking campaigns,” Sirota and Warner warn. “As millions of votes were swayed, reporters and the public had no knowledge of the money sources, or what policies they were buying. Heading into the 2022 election, the situation is getting worse. The two parties’ major Senate and House Super PACs are all being funded by anonymous dark money groups that are not required to disclose their donors.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: Dark money fueled the Jan. 6 insurrection — but we still don't know who paid for them: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sirota and Warner, however, do offer some “good news,” pointing out that the Disclose Act — a bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island — would “force dark money groups to disclose any of their donors who give more than $10,000, require shell companies spending money on elections to disclose their owners, and mandate that election ads list their sponsors’ major contributors.” And a separate Whitehouse-sponsored bill, they add, “would additionally require donor disclosure from shadowy groups lobbying the Supreme Court through amicus briefs designed to tilt judicial rulings without letting the public know which billionaire or CEO’s thumb is on the scale.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“In the landmark Citizens United ruling that unleashed the modern era of big money politics,” Sirota and Warner write, “the majority noted that while it was unwilling to permit political spending restrictions, it still held that ‘government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements.’ Those requirements are so desperately needed now — for the free press to play its vital role, and for voters to make informed decisions when they go to the polls.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">READ MORE: New report details Clarence Thomas’ 'shady ties to sprawling network of dark money'</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://yyy.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/29/billions-in-dark-money-is-influencing-us-politics-we-need-disclosure-laws</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Billions in ‘dark money’ is influencing US politics. We need disclosure laws</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Sirota and Joel Warner</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A donor secretly transferred $1.6bn to a Republican political group. Because of America’s lax laws, the donation was never disclosed in any public record or database</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘A billionaire transferred $1.6bn to a political group controlled by Republican operative Leonard Leo, who spearheaded the construction of a conservative supreme court supermajority to end abortion, block government regulations, stymie the fight against climate change and limit voting rights.’</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mon 29 Aug 2022&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This week, the Lever, ProPublica and the New York Times discovered the largest known political advocacy donation in American history. We exposed a reclusive billionaire’s secret transfer of $1.6bn to a political group controlled by the Republican operative Leonard Leo, who spearheaded the construction of a conservative supreme court supermajority to end abortion, block government regulations, stymie the fight against climate change and limit voting rights.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This anonymous donation – which flowed to a tax-exempt trust that was never disclosed in any public record or database – was probably completely legal.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whether you support or abhor Leo’s crusade, we should be able to agree on one larger non-partisan principle: such enormous sums of money should not be able to influence elections, lawmakers, judicial nominations and public policy in secret. And we should not have to rely on a rare leak to learn basic campaign finance facts that should be freely available to anyone.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">---</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lnx</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">unfortunately, thanks to our outdated laws, those facts are now hidden behind anonymity, shell companies and shadowy political groups. America is long overdue for an overhaul of its political disclosure laws – and news organizations in particular should be leading the charge for reform.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the early 1970s, leaks and shoe-leather reporting by news organizations uncovered the Watergate scandal – the modern era’s foundational dark money exposé. That debacle birthed the original federal disclosure laws and a golden age of journalism. For a time, the new statutes allowed campaign finance reporting to become systematic, methodical and based on required disclosures, rather than sporadic, random and reliant on the goodwill of courageous whistleblowers.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A half-century later, however, the dark money practices of 50 years ago have again become normalized. In 2020 alone, more than $1bn worth of dark money flooded around weak disclosure rules and into America’s elections, financing Super Pacs, ad blitzes, mailers and door-knocking campaigns. As millions of votes were swayed, reporters and the public had no knowledge of the money sources, or what policies they were buying.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Heading into the 2022 election, the situation is getting worse. The two parties’ major Senate and House Super Pacs are all being funded by anonymous dark money groups that are not required to disclose their donors.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advertisement</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These problems aren’t unique to the campaign arena. Front groups are also shaping public policy, leaving reporters unable to tell voters who exactly is funding what. In the last few years, an anonymously funded group used post-election ads to successfully pressure lawmakers to water down landmark healthcare legislation designed to eliminate so-called “surprise” medical bills.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Similarly, Leo’s anonymously funded network spent tens of millions to boost the nomination campaigns of three conservative supreme court justices, after leading a campaign supporting Republicans’ refusal to hold a vote on Barack Obama’s 2016 high court nominee, Merrick Garland.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To be sure, news outlets can still cover the shrinking portion of the political finance system that still discloses some money flows to politicians, lobbyists and advocacy groups. And thankfully, there are occasionally disclosures like the Leo leak, which provide a fleeting glimpse into the real forces influencing sweeping policy decisions.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But for every sporadic leak, there are scores of secret donors systematically funneling ever more dark money into elections and legislative campaigns without ever being exposed – and they are reaping the rewards of corrupted public policy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">That’s the bad news. The good news is there is already a legislative blueprint for reform.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Disclose Act, sponsored by the Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would force dark money groups to disclose any of their donors who give more than $10,000, require shell companies spending money on elections to disclose their owners, and mandate that election ads list their sponsors’ major contributors. These requirements would extend not only to election-related activity, but also to campaigns to influence governmental decisions – including judicial nominations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A separate Whitehouse bill would additionally require donor disclosure from shadowy groups lobbying the supreme court through amicus briefs designed to tilt judicial rulings without letting the public know which billionaire or CEO’s thumb is on the scale. And other pending legislation would finally allow the Securities and Exchange Commission to require major corporations to more fully disclose their political spending.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Journalists should proudly advocate for laws like these, which allow us to tell the public what its government is doing. Our industry has done that before in defending open records laws, and we must do it now in advocating for new campaign finance disclosure rules.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In practice, that means reporters elevating the transparency issue and demanding answers from politicians about where they stand on disclosure laws – rather than ignoring or downplaying the rising tide of dark money now shaping every public policy in America.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advertisement</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It means newspaper editorial boards advocating for campaign finance reform.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It means media organizations lobbying for stronger disclosure laws at the federal, state and local levels.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It means the journalism industry participating in – and at times leading – this fight, rather than using objectivity as a cop-out.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This battle to update campaign finance disclosure laws and bring sunlight to the darkest of dark money already faces powerful opponents. In recent years, the US Chamber of Commerce and Koch Industries – which represent some of America’s biggest dark money spenders – have been lobbying against the Disclose Act, preventing it from advancing for more than a decade.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Koch network recently convinced the supreme court’s conservative bloc to strike down a California law requiring non-profit dark money groups to at least disclose their major donors to state tax regulators, after spending to back some of those justices’ confirmations to the court.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Most recently, conservative groups and Republican state attorneys general have been trying to block a proposal to force companies to disclose greenhouse gas emissions by arguing that it is unlawful “compelled speech” – a preview of the argument they might use against new campaign finance transparency legislation.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Just as alarming, segments of the journalism industry itself have opposed transparency efforts. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) — which represents the major media outlets making huge profits off of dark money ads — tried to block a rule at the Federal Election Commission a decade ago to require TV and radio stations to disclose ad buys from political groups, arguing it would cost them advertising revenue.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The NAB has recently successfully opposed the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements that broadcasters disclose when foreign governments sponsor material. NAB is right now lobbying on the Disclose Act.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But this week’s revelations about history’s largest dark-money donation should be an alarm telling us that the status quo must change – and indeed it can change, even within the confines of the supreme court’s own precedents.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the landmark Citizens United ruling that unleashed the modern era of big money politics, the majority noted that while it was unwilling to permit political spending restrictions, it still held that “government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements”.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Those requirements are so desperately needed now – for the free press to play its vital role, and for voters to make informed decisions when they go to the polls.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But the only chance it will happen is if news outlets and reporters get off the sidelines and enter the battle to secure what they need to do their jobs – and what we all need to preserve our democracy.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">David Sirota is an award-winning journalist who founded the investigative news outlet the Lever</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Joel Warner is the Lever’s managing editor</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=}}</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10 31 21</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Hartmann Report.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If President Biden's Build Back Better plan goes down in flames, you can blame the US Supreme Court. Their Citizens United decision, in fact, is destroying both American politics and the planet.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Case in point: Oil industry executives testified before Congress this week, suffering a barrage of questions, including particularly intense ones from Reps. Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Katie Porter.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The CEOs exhibited the same sort of arrogant insolence Mark Zuckerberg displayed in July of last year when he was hauled before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. It was, basically, a smug, "Screw you, Congressperson."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Why were the representatives of Big Oil and Big Tech unafraid of the power of Congress?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because, at the end of the day, they own that power. The Supreme Court gave it to them with their poisonous Citizens United decision.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It turns out that Big Oil has spent, just over the past decade, over $450 million lobbying the federal government. We used to call this political corruption or even bribery until the Court ruled in Citizens United that money in politics isn't money: it's "free speech."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And, the Court added, corporations aren't corporations: they're persons, complete with a First Amendment right to free speech.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Representative Khanna repeatedly asked the CEOs of Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, and BP America if they'd stop funding advertising and PR efforts that are filled with outright lies about climate change. Pretty much every time he asked, he was met with a "screw you" silence.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">These CEOs effectively own multiple members of Congress, as the world could see when it was the turn of the meek and obeisant Republican members to ask questions that mostly amounted to, "May I fluff the pillow you're sitting on, sir?"</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">And it's not just Big Oil. Every industry in America laughs at Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Our elected representatives are there, in the minds of corporate America, to hand out subsidies and tax breaks, but if they take the smallest step toward protecting the American people from giant corporations or predatory billionaires they're simply brushed aside like troublesome lint.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans don't want Medicare privatized: but we're more than 40% of the way there through Bush's "Medicare Advantage" scam.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans don't want our Post Office gutted: Congress sucked tens of billions out of its budget in 2006 after the PO said they were going to electrify their fleet of cars (the largest in America) and DeJoy is using that as an excuse to cut service and raise prices.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like debt-free college like every other developed country in the world: the $1.5 trillion student loan industry just makes a few phone calls and the effort dies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans want a national healthcare system that actually works at little cost to citizens: the health insurance industry hands Joe Lieberman over a million dollars and he kills the public option so we're left with an entirely corporatized Obamacare with $5000 annual deductibles.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans want something done about high drug prices: Big Pharma calls up Kurt Schrader, Scott Peters, Kathleen Rice, Kyrsten Sinema and a few other wholly owned members of Congress and that's the end of that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans want their banks to stop hitting them with absurd fees for the smallest errors and would like some occasional customer service: Big Banking pulls a few strings and Senators are dancing like marionettes.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans want something done about climate change before our planet becomes uninhabitable: Big Coal and Gas light a fire under Joe Manchin and the entire GOP and that's the end of that.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like open and transparent elections and for their democracy to work like in other countries, without barriers to voting or bought-off politicians: neofascist rightwing billionaires will have the final say on that and it's not looking good.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like net neutrality and for corporations to stop spying on them: Big Tech just leans on the members of Congress they own and that effort comes to an abrupt halt.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like well-funded public schools that teach things like civics and critical thinking skills: the multi-billion-dollar Charter School industry gets last word.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like to be free of gun violence in our homes and streets: the gun industry gets final say here.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like good union jobs: the nation's giant employers have paid off politicians to gut union protections.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The majority of Americans would like a food supply free of toxic chemicals that harm children and cause cancer: giant fast- and processed-food companies laugh at us while their buddies in the chemical industry hold their beer.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hell, the President of the United States would like all these things and a few more. He will almost certainly not get them because the Supreme Court gave corporations and rightwing billionaires final say over every single piece of legislation that goes through Congress.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We're ripped off left and right, from airline tickets to cell phone service to cable TV and the internet: citizens of Europe, South Korea and Japan pay, on average, about half of what we do because they all enforce competition and don't allow monopolies.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here, every industry is now dominated by 3-5 major corporations that function as a monopoly or oligopoly, which is why the average American family pays around $5000 a year more for everything as I documented in The Hidden History of Monopolies: How Big Business Destroyed the American Dream.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The US Supreme Court brought us all of this with the vile Citizens United decision and its progenitors, Boston v Bellotti, Buckley v Valeo, and Santa Clara County.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Thus, we now face a real crisis.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Court gave control of Congress over to billionaires and their companies, and only Congress can overrule the Court (Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution). But how does Congress do that when none of the corporations or billionaires who now own Congress want it to happen?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There is only one force that can make this happen now: citizen outrage.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">People are genuinely disgusted by this corruption, and they're voting with it in mind.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Even Donald Trump was elected on a promise to "drain the swamp" of big money corruption in DC. He claimed that he knew how the game was played because he played it himself, buying off politicians whenever necessary.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During the August 2015 GOP primary debate, he called out all the other Republicans on the stage, saying: "I gave [money] to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In September he ran that line again at the next primary debate, saying: "The donors, the special interests, the lobbyists have very strong power over these people," as he waved at the other Republicans on stage. "I am not accepting any money from anybody. Nobody has control of me other than the people of this country."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sadly, enough Americans believed that professional grifter to get him into the White House (with a little help from Russian oligarchs), but the principle remains: even Republican voters are disgusted by this crisis of corruption the Supreme Court has foisted upon us.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than a decade ago I did a fundraiser for the Congressional Progressive Caucus with its then-chair, Rep. Raúl Grijalva. It was a small affair with a half-dozen politicians and around 100 activists.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Because of citizen outrage with how corrupt and bought-off our politics have become since the Supreme Court rewrote the rules of politics, today almost 100 members of Congress have been elected on "no corporate PAC money" pledges and become members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Today we're watching an epic battle to rebuild America being fought valiantly by progressives like Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They may lose this one battle, but the path they're on is steadily upward.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is the only way we can now claw back our democratic republic from the corrupt billionaires and corporations.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We have to get money out of politics and the only way to do that is to get more people in office who are not addicted to or corrupted by money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">There's an election coming up in a year, and primaries will be conducted in the months ahead. We must do everything we can to identify, elect and support politicians who openly and sincerely pledge never to sell their souls to the devil of Big Money.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">aha omg yikes none of these ppl have been pro-democracy, at least when it conflicts w/ profits; zuck says pro regulation as deflection of blame? or // exxon on carbo tax, knowsit will not happen so lip service?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.alternet.org/2022/01/billionaires-2656489510/</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">me truthout</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Billionaire election spending has drastically increased over the last 12 years as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, according to TruthOut.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) recently analyzed data that breaks down election campaign contributions. Their assessment suggests that there is an upward trend in billionaire donations to political campaigns. Per the assessment, "billionaires have increased their donations from $31 million total during the 2010 election cycle to a whopping $1.2 billion in the 2020 election cycle, or about 39 times more."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In short, the amount spent in just 2020 accounts for almost 40% of all billionaire political campaign donations since 1990. In fact, spending in the four-year span between 2012 and 2016 is an indication of how trends have changed dramatically.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2016, billionaires spent approximately $682 million in campaign donations as opposed to just $233 million back in 2012. So how did the Citizens United ruling open this door?</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Per Truthout:</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"In January of 2010, conservative Supreme Court justices ruled in their Citizens United decision that restricting corporate donations was a violation of corporations’ First Amendment rights – a decision that granted individual rights to corporations and enabled them to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign contributions. As a result of this decision, vast amounts of money from corporate and deep-pocketed interests have been funneled into elections."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness released a statement criticizing the court's decision describing it as "weak taxation of the wealthy" and "anemic regulation."</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“On this anniversary of the disastrous Citizens United decision, the escalating campaign donations of billionaires offer the clearest argument possible for why we have to get big money out of politics,” said Clemente. “Weak taxation of the wealthy combined with anemic regulation of campaign fundraising have handed America’s billionaires outsized political influence to go along with their huge economic clout.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">AFFT also released a statement criticizing the ruling.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Corporations are not people, and billionaires shouldn’t get to use their enormous wealth to pick and choose who they want in office,” Americans for Tax Fairness wrote. “It’s well beyond time for Citizens United to go, and to put real action towards getting big money out of politics. Our democracy depends on it.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-205.htm</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">No. 08-205&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Title:&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citizens United, Appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">v.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Docketed: August 18, 2008</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lower Ct: United States District Court for the District of Columbia</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; Case Nos.: (07-2240)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; Decision Date: July 18, 2008</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Questions Presented</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">_Date&nbsp; ~Proceedings&nbsp; and&nbsp; Orders_{</font></div><div>}<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 14 2008 Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due September 17, 2008)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 10 2008 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2008.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 17 2008 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oct 17 2008 Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellee Federal Election Commission.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oct 24 2008 Reply of appellant Citizens United filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Oct 29 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2008.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Nov 14 2008 PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 5 2008 Consent to the filing of amicus briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the appellant.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 11 2008 The time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 8, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dec 11 2008 The time within which to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 17, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 8 2009 Joint appendix filed. Statement of costs received.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 8 2009 Brief of appellant Citizens United filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 12 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Free Expression filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 14 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc. filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defense Fund filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 15 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 26 2009 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 27 2009 Record from the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia is electronically filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 29 2009 CIRCULATED.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb 3 2009 Exhibits and CDs received from U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb 17 2009 Brief of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb 23 2009 Brief amici curiae of Center for Political Accountability, et al. filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb 24 2009 Brief amici curiae of Senator John McCain, et al. filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mar 17 2009 Reply of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mar 24 2009 Argued. For appellant: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C. For appellee: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jun 29 2009 This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question: For the proper disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U.S.C.&nbsp; 441b? The briefs, not to exceed 6,000 words, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, July 24, 2009. Amicus briefs, not to exceed 4,500 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel to the parties by 2 p.m., Friday, July 31, 2009. Reply briefs, not to exceed 3,000 words, may be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2009. The case is set for oral argument at 10 a.m., Wednesday, September 9, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 21 2009 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or neither party received from counsel for the appellee.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 23 2009 Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 24 2009 Supplemental brief of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 24 2009 Supplemental brief of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 24 2009 Supplemental brief amicus curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 28 2009 Brief amici curiae of Seven Former Chairmen and One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 29 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 29 2009 Brief amici curiae of Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 29 2009 Brief amici curiae of Center for Political Accountability, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 30 2009 Consent to the filing of amicus briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellant.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellant filed. (Distributed).</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union in support of the appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Independent Sector in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Montana, et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of California Broadcasters Association, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of American Justice Partnership, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Competitive Politics in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Campaign Finance Scholars in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, et al. filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defense Fund in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Senator Mitch McConnell in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Michigan Chamber of Commerce in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of California First Amendment Coalition in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al., in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Hachette Book Group, Inc., et al. in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in support of appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Committee for Economic Development in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Center for Independent Media, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Representatives Chris Van Hollen, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Norman Ornstein, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Justice at Stake, et al. in support of the appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Democratic National Committee in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Sunlight Foundation, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of League of Women Voters of the United States, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Public Good in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amici curiae of Senator John McCain, et al. in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of American Independent Business Alliance in support of appellee filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jul 31 2009 Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. in support of appellant filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 3 2009 Opposition of appellant to motion of Senator McConnell for divided argument.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 10 2009 SET FOR REARGUMENT ON Wednesday, September 9, 2009.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 17 2009 Motion of Senator Mitch McConnell for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 17 2009 Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. A total of 80 minutes is allocated for oral argument and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes to appellant, 10 minutes to Senator Mitch McConnell, 30 minutes to appellee, and 10 minutes to Senator John McCain, et al.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 18 2009 Motion of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument filed.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 19 2009 Supplemental reply of appellant Citizens United, Appellant filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Aug 19 2009 Supplemental reply of appellee Federal Election Commission filed. (Distributed)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 4 2009 Motion of Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sep 9 2009 Argued. For appellant: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D.C.; and Floyd Abrams, New York, N.Y., for Senator McConnell. For appellee: Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C. for Senator McCain, et al.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan 21 2010 Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Feb 22 2010 JUDGMENT ISSUED.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mar 30 2010 Exhibits & CS's returned to U.S.D.C. for District of Columbia.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Name_&nbsp; &nbsp; ~Address&nbsp; &nbsp;Phone_{</font></div><div>}<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attorneys for Appellant:&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Theodore B. Olson Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (202) 955-8500</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; Counsel of Record 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20036&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tolson@gibsondunn.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Citizens United, Appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Attorneys for Appellee:&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Elena Kagan Solicitor General (202) 514-2217</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp; &nbsp; Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20530-0001&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Malcolm L. Stewart Deputy Solicitor General (202) 514-2201</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Department of Justice&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20530&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">malcolm.l.stewart@usjoj.gov</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Other:&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Floyd Abrams Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (212) 701-3000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">80 Pine Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10005&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">fabrams@cahill.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Senator Mitch McConnell in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jan Witold Baran Wiley Rein, LLP (202) 719-7000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1776 K Street, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20006&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jbaran@wileyrein.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Benjamin Barr Government Watch, PC (240)-863-8280</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10737 Hunting Lane&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Rockville, MD&nbsp; 20850&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">benjamin.barr@gmail.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Wyoming Liberty Group, et al. in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">H. Christopher Bartolomucci Bancroft PLLC (202) 234-0090</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20036&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cbartolomucci@bancroftpllc.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Norman Ornstein, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Robert F. Bauer Perkins Coie LLP (202) 434-1602</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">700 13th St.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 600&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20005&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Democratic National Committee in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Bopp Jr. The Bopp Law Firm (812) 232-2434</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1 South 6th Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Terre Haute, IN&nbsp; 47807-3510&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jboppjr@aol.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Seven Former Chairmen and One Former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Benjamin W. Bull Alliance Defending Freedom (480) 444-0020</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">15100 N. 90th Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scottsdale, AZ&nbsp; 85260&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bbull@alliancedefendingfreedom.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Alliance Defense Fund in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anthony T. Caso Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (714) 628-2666</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">c/o Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">One University Drive&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Orange, CA&nbsp; 92886&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">caso@chapman.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">M. Devereux Chatillon Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP (212) 768-6700</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1221 Avenue of the Americas&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10020-1089&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DChatillon@Sonnenschein.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Independent Sector in support of neither party</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael J. Chepiga Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (212) 455-2000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">425 Lexington Ave.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10017&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Hachette Book Group, Inc. , et al. in support of neither party</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jeffrey D. Clements Clements Law Office LLC (978)-287-4901</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 4B-b&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">9 Damonmill Square&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Concord, MA&nbsp; 01742&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jclements@clementsllc.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Charles J. Cooper Cooper & Kirk, PLLC (202) 220-9600</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20036&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ccooper@cooperkirk.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: National Rifle Association in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lucy A Dalglish Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (703) 807-2100</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arlington, VA&nbsp; 22209-2100&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ldalglish@rcfp.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Supplemental)</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deborah Dewart 620 E. Sabiston Drive (910)-326-4554</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Swansboro, NC&nbsp; 28584-9674&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">debcpalaw@earthlink.net</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Foundation for Free Expression</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Norman Dorsen Stokes Professor of Law (212) 998-6172</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York University School of Law&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">40 Washington Square South&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10012&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">norman.dorsen@nyu.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Former Officials of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of neither party</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Peter J. Ferrara 2011 Freedom Lane (703) 582-8466</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Falls Church, VA&nbsp; 22043&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">peterferrara@msn.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: American Civil Rights Union</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Patrick T. Gillen Fidelis Center for Law & Policy (312) 276-5109</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">190 South LaSalle Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 2130&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Chicago, IL&nbsp; 60603&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Fidelis Center for Law and Policy, et al.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Laurence E. Gold AFL-CIO (202) 637-5130</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">815 Sixteenth Street, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20006&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">lgold@aflcio.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Allison R. Hayward Professor (703) 894-6800</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Center for Competitive Politics&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">124 S. West Street, Suite 201&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alexandria, VA&nbsp; 22314&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ahaward@campaignfreedom</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Campaign Finance Scholars in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Stephen M. Hoersting Center for Competitive Politics (703) 894-6800</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">124 S. West Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 201&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Alexandria, VA&nbsp; 22314&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">shoersting@campaignfreedom.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Center for Competitive Politics in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jean-Paul Jassy Bostwick & Jassy LLP (310) 979-6059</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">12400 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Los Angeles, CA&nbsp; 90025&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">jpjassy@bostwickjassy.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: California First Amendment Coalition in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Anthony Johnstone Solicitor (406)-444-2026</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Montana Department of Justice&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">P.O. Box 201401&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Helena, MT&nbsp; 59620-1401&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ajohnstone@mt.gov</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Montana, et al. in support of neither party</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Deborah J. La Fetra Pacific Legal Foundation (916) 419-7111</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">930 G Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Sacramento, CA&nbsp; 95814&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">djl@pacificlegal.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Pacific Legal Foundation in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William R. Maurer Institute for Justice (206) 341-9300</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">101 Yesler Way, Suite 603&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seattle, WA&nbsp; 98104&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wmaurer@ij.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Institute for Justice</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Richard D. McLellan Dykema Gossett PLLC (517) 374-9181</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">201 Townsent Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 900&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lansing, MI&nbsp; 48933&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Michigan Chamber of Commerce in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seth E. Mermin Public Good (510) 548-4064</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3130 Shattuck Avenue&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Berkeley, CA&nbsp; 94705&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Public Good in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Cleta Mitchell Act Right Legal Foundation (202) 683-9405</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2029 K Street NW&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 300&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20006&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">cmitchell@actright.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: American Justice Partnership, et al. in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Scott L. Nelson Public Citizen Litigation Group (202) 588-1000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1600 20th Street, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20009&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">snelson@citizen.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Senator John McCain, et al.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Lawrence H. Norton -Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice (202) 857-4429</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1401 I Street, NW Seventh Floor&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20005&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: California Broadcasters Association, et al. in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">William J. Olson William J.Olson PC (703) 356-5070</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vienna, VA&nbsp; 22180-5615&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wjo@mindspring.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Free Speech Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Paul J. Orfanedes Judicial Watch, Inc. (202) 646-5172</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20024&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">porfanedes@judicialwatch.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Judicial Watch, Inc.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Bradley S. Phillips Munger Tolles & Olson LLP (213) 683-9100</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Los Angeles, CA&nbsp; 90071-1560&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">brad.phillips@mto.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Representatives Chris Van Hollen, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Trevor Potter Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered (202) 862-5092</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1 Thomas Circle, N.W., Suite 1100&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20036&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">tpotter@capdale.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Campaign Legal Center, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Karl J. Sandstrom Perkins Coie LLP (202)-628-6600</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">607 14th Street NW 8th Floor&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20005&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ksandstrom@perkinscoie.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Center for Political Accountability, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James Eckford Scarboro Arnold & Porter, LLP (303) 863-1000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">370 17th Street, suite 4500&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Denver, CO&nbsp; 80202&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">James.Scarboro@aporter.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Justice at Stake, et al. in support of the appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Steven R. Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (212) 549-2500</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">125 Broad Street&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10004&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">sshapiro@aclu.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: American Civil Liberties Union in support of the appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Steven M. Simpson Institute for Justice (703) 682-9320</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">901 North Glebe Road&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 900&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Arlington, VA&nbsp; 22203&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ssimpson@ij.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Institute for Justice in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Paul M. Smith Jenner & Block LLP (202) 639-6000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1099 New York Avenue, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 900&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20001&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">psmith@jenner.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Committee for Economic Development in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Gary S. Stein Pashman Stein PC (201) 488-8200</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Court Plaza South&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">21 Main Street, Suite 100&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hackensack, NJ&nbsp; 07601&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Sunlight Foundation, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Seth P. Waxman Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (202) 663-6000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20006&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Senator John McCain, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Benjamin D. Wood Patton Boggs LLP (202)-457-6000</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">2550 M Street, NW&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20037&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">www.pattonboggs.com</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Cato Institute in support of appellant</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brenda Wright 358 Chestnut Hill Avenue (617) 232-5885</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Suite 303&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Brighton, MA&nbsp; 02135&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">bwright@demos.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: American Independent Business Alliance in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Elizabeth B. Wydra Constitutional Accountability Center (202) 296-6889</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">1200 18th St., N.W., Suite 501&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Washington, DC&nbsp; 20036&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">elizabeth@theusconstitution.org</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: League of Women Voters of the United States, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monica Youn Brennan Center for Justice At NYU School of Law (212)-998-6730</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">161 Avenue of the Americas 12th Floor&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">New York, NY&nbsp; 10013&nbsp;</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">monica.youn@nyu.edu</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Party name: Center for Independent Media, et al. in support of appellee</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">===</font></div>